Chapter 3: How do we keep moving forward? A road map for our future

3.1 Introduction

In chapters 1 and 2, I look back over the past 20 years that the Social Justice Commissioner position has been in place and think about the journey and our learning over this time. In this chapter, I want to explore how those lessons can take us forward to chart a confident course into the future and how the realisation of our rights can produce long term sustainable improvements in our life outcomes. Three themes are constants in every Commissioner’s work over this 20 year period: rights, relationships and responsibilities. I want to see us build on these themes into the future.

This is an ideal time to think about the direction we want to take for the future, with the election of a new Federal Government on 7 September 2013. Like any new government, there will be opportunities and challenges. My hope is that this chapter can help inform the agenda for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander affairs.

In many ways we are already on the right track. Our progress in areas of health equality, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander representation through the National Congress of Australia’s First Peoples (Congress) and the path to constitutional recognition set by the Federal Parliament are all examples of this. But we need to stay the course. This will require determination, patience and commitment to see these things through.

However, in other areas I think it is fair to say that we still have a long way to go. The results speak for themselves, with our people still lagging behind on many social indicators. Over the past 20 years, governments have taken various paths to try to address Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander issues. Invariably, many have gone around in circles and ended up back where they started. This hasn’t been for lack of goodwill or good intentions. It has been because they have failed, in the main, to adequately ask communities where they want to go and involve them in the decision-making.

Despite this mixed progress, I am cautious about proposing a radical new way. I think amongst some Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities there is fatigue and real cynicism about all these ‘new ways’. Every time the political landscape changes we get bombarded with another innovation that seldom results in measurable improvements because they fail to fundamentally engage with communities and coordinate their efforts.

What I am proposing is something that harks right back to the very first Social Justice Report in 1993^[1] – our communities must decide the directions we take into the future. The only way we move forward is with communities meaningfully participating in the decisions that affect them and this means there needs to be fundamental changes to the way governments engage with us.

The way to achieve this is by improving relationships and realising rights.

Each Social Justice Commissioner has consistently advocated for a relationship between governments and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities built on mutual trust and respect, where our voices are heard, where we are treated as equals with government and where we are allowed to say both yes and no.

This relationship supports an understanding that sustainable improvements for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples will only be attained with our participation in the design and delivery of policy, legislation and programs.

Professor Dodson advocated for this relationship 20 years ago and we still advocate for that relationship today.

Another aspect of relationships is the one between Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples and the rest of the Australian population. Again Social Justice Commissioners have consistently argued that reform of our constitution has the potential to reset this relationship. Once this reform occurs, this relationship will change forever for the better and will signal to the world that this nation has come to terms with its past.

Improving each of these relationships could be seen as practical manifestations of a human rights-based approach.

However, it worries me that in certain parts of the Australian body politic and community, rights are almost used as a pejorative. Advocates are often derided as somehow disconnected from the real lives of real people. Looking back at and knowing the people who have occupied this position, who have always advocated rights-based approaches, it is hard to sustain the view of them as somehow disconnected from their own communities.

In Australia, we generally have a proud history of advocating human rights. In 1948 we were represented on the committee tasked with drafting the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, we were one of the first countries to franchise women in our elections and we have committed to seven of the most important international human rights conventions and treaties.^[2]

But somehow, a ‘rights-based approach’ is seen by some as an anathema in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander affairs; somehow for us, our situation is so dire that governments and others can justify the non-recognition and removal of our rights for the ‘greater good’ without discussion, without engagement and certainly without our agreement.

I believe we need a new narrative in which a rights-based approach is essential in providing sustainable improvements in our communities and families, an approach where rights and responsibilities stand side-by-side.

I want to reframe self-determination not only as a right but also as a call to our people to rise to this challenge and take responsibility and control over our internal and local affairs, and we measure its effectiveness by how the most vulnerable in the community are engaged and heard.

Rather than think of rights that we demand, I want to think of responsibilities and opportunities that we grasp.

If engagement is to be effective and if programs are going to deliver the optimum outcomes, these must be done in a way that fits our way of doing things. We must be able to engage with people who understand that. Put simply, this means dealing with people who are culturally competent and working within systems that are culturally secure. Cultural competence and cultural security emerges from the respect for and protection of our culture, one of the four principles guiding us in our efforts to give effect to the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (the Declaration) here in Australia.

In this chapter, I will further outline some of the directions we need to follow for our communities to be in control. Some will be about staying the course but others will require a more fundamental shift encompassing governance, the interplay between rights and responsibilities, and the allocation of resources. All of this is underpinned by rights, relationships and responsibilities.

3.2 Staying the course

The last thing we need to do in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander affairs is start from scratch; there have been too many ‘first days’ of new strategies, programs and approaches. Too many people have worked too hard for us to throw away everything we have done over the last five years. I am hopeful the new Government builds on the work done over this period and I am encouraged to see that Prime Minister Abbott also shares a considered approach, stating:

I am reluctant to decree further upheaval in an area that’s been subject to one and a half generations of largely ineffectual ‘reform’.^[3]

There are things we are doing which are working well. For instance, despite the hostility of the last Parliament, we have seen an unprecedented level of multi-party support for some aspects of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander policy. This tells me that politicians and indeed, Australia as a nation, is beginning to realise that the importance of these issues transcends politics.

I am also pleased to see that the status of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander affairs is being elevated in Cabinet. I have long held a view that it is too much to ask a ‘line agency’, such as the Department of Family, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs,^[4] to coordinate the Government’s effort with other line agencies, such as Health and Ageing and Education. I believe this is the proper role of a ‘central agency’ like the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet. The inclusion of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander affairs in that Department with a dedicated Minister for Indigenous Affairs, whose sole responsibility is for that portfolio, shows a genuine commitment to achieving change.

The next challenge is to maintain this commitment into the future for the things that are working. I have often said that achieving real change is a nation building effort and will take at least a generation. After all, we are dealing with entrenched problems with long histories. Just as we are starting to see Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander issues in a bipartisan way, we also need to recognise that they will not be resolved within a single funding or election cycle, and may not even be resolved within the careers of many working within the bureaucracy.

Dr Peter Shergold, a former head of the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet with over 20 years’ experience as a senior public servant overseeing Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander affairs, recently noted:

Most of the public servants I worked alongside did their best. Yet, after two decades, the scale of relative disadvantage suffered by indigenous Australians remained as intractable as ever. I can think of no failure in public policy that has had such profound consequences.^[5]

This sort of honesty about the low baseline of previous government achievements and the significant commitment needed is welcome. I don’t raise this to be pessimistic, just realistic about the challenges ahead.

(a) The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples^[6]

If this chapter is about creating a road map for the future of our communities, the Declaration is our compass.

It is no coincidence that as we looked at the past 20 years of the office of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Justice Commissioner, the development of and advocacy for the Declaration was a common thread with each Commissioner. Professor Dodson’s term was in the early days of the discussions around the development of the Declaration; Dr Jonas continued the advocacy; and Dr Calma’s term saw the adoption of the Declaration by the United Nations General Assembly in 2007 and his advocacy saw its support by the Australian Government in 2009.

Since the beginning of my term I have seen the Declaration as that compass to guide me as I do what is asked of this office in ‘reviewing the impact of policies and laws on, and monitoring the enjoyment and exercise of human rights by, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples’.^[7]

I have called for and worked at giving full effect to the Declaration by Government, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities, the business sector and non-government organisations (NGOs).

It is time to breathe life into the Declaration and make it more practical for our everyday lives. As I have said previously, this is important:

Because rights are not abstract concepts that exist in documents such as treaties, conventions and declarations alone. Rights are only rights when they are exercised. Therefore, the practical actions and outcomes needed to address disadvantage in real terms are the realisation of human rights.^[8]

Similarly, Professor Dodson writing about the Declaration said: ‘The value of human rights is not in their existence; it is in their implementation.’^[9]

It is my hope that as we further consider what the Declaration means to us, it will become a more powerful tool for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples to advocate for our rights and to guide Government policy.

The United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues (UNPFII) in May 2013 marked a watershed moment when the Australian Government and the Commission, supported by the Congress, delivered a Joint Statement:

The Australian Government...committed to assisting Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples to achieve improved outcomes...[and] working with the Australian Human Rights Commission and the National Congress of Australia’s First Peoples to increase awareness of, and encourage dialogue about, the Declaration in policy development, program implementation and service delivery as a way to embed the Declaration in how business is done. ...

We will work together to raise awareness of the Declaration with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples and all stakeholders, and facilitate discussion regarding the principles underpinning the Declaration and what they mean in a practical context.^[10]

For me it was the moment when Government finally accepted it had at least a moral obligation, if not a legal one, to take action to give effect to the Declaration here in Australia. The challenge for us all now is to work out what that would look like.

There is no ‘one’ right way to give effect to the rights in the Declaration. The implementation of the Declaration will look different in different nations, depending on the needs, aspirations and situations of their Indigenous peoples.

The International Law Association has described the diversity of actions that nations may take to put the Declaration into practice:

States ought to restructure their domestic law in view of adopting all necessary measures – including constitutional amendments, institutional and legislative reforms, judicial action, administrative rules, special policies, reparations procedures and awareness-raising activities – in order to make the full realization of indigenous peoples’ human rights possible within their territories, consistent with the rules and standards established by the UNDRIP.^[11]

Some countries have adopted particular articles in the Declaration as national law. Others have developed participatory mechanisms or have prioritised education and promotion of the rights in the Declaration.

For example:

• The Pluri-national State of Bolivia passed a law which supports programmes relevant to the implementation of the Declaration in 2007.^[12]
• In Norway, the legislation for the ‘Procedures for Consultations between State Authorities and the Sami Parliament’^[13] ensures that new measures, legal provisions and consultation procedures are conducted in accordance with the Sami peoples’ right to participate and have a tangible influence in the decision-making procedures that directly affect their interests.^[14]
• In Peru, in designing a national plan for the implementation of bilingual education, Indigenous peoples will participate collaboratively with the Minister of Education in the formulation of these educational programs.^[15]

Similarly, different approaches will also be suited to specific contexts. Text Box 3.1 contains some of the approaches that are most relevant to the implementation of the Declaration.

 

All of these approaches are reasonable and will have a place in certain circumstances. However, I believe the ‘principled’ approach presents the most opportunities in the Australian context. It is a broader framework that is not inconsistent to the other approaches but is more user-friendly and flexible.

I believe approaching the challenge of implementation through the principles rather than addressing each article individually will provide an analysis that is better understood by a broader cross section of Government and the community.

Over and over I have said that the Declaration is not a program of work, it is a way of doing things or a process based on principles. I believe the principled approach is the best way of translating this to action for Government.

(i) The principles

The Declaration covers all areas of human rights as they relate to Indigenous peoples. These can be categorised into four key principles:

• self-determination
• participation in decision-making, underpinned by free, prior and informed consent and good faith
• respect for and protection of culture
• equality and non-discrimination.^[17]

These four principles provide guidance on how Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities, governments, civil society and the private sector can apply the Declaration to fully realise the human rights of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. These principles will also provide benchmarks against which the effectiveness of the implementation can be measured.

(ii) A National Declaration Strategy

A National Declaration Strategy (National Strategy) is necessary because the adoption of the Declaration will not, in and of itself, guarantee the realisation of the rights it sets out. A National Strategy must be developed in partnership between the government and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. It should clearly articulate what needs to be done and ensure a coordinated effort to realise the rights in the Declaration.

In line with the commitment from the Australian Government given at the UNPFII, the Commission and Congress are working together on a National Strategy to give effect to the Declaration. Over the next 12 months, we will be conducting Declaration Dialogues with our communities and organisations, all levels of government, businesses and NGOs, to discuss what this means for us in the Australian context.

Through these Dialogues, we hope to reach a common understanding of the principles, how they might look in action and what we need to do to make them work. I encourage everyone to engage with these conversations, which will culminate in a National Declaration Summit focusing on the implementation of the Declaration in late 2014.
I will provide a detailed report on the Declaration Dialogues and the work undertaken on the National Declaration Strategy in next year’s Social Justice and Native Title Report.

(iii) Government use of the Declaration

I welcome the scrutiny of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights (JCHR) that oversees the requirement for new legislation to be accompanied by a statement setting out how the law complies with Australia’s international human rights obligations. And I am pleased that Australian Government Departments are increasingly referencing the Declaration as a part of this process.

However, while this progress is pleasing, the requirement to reference the Declaration is not embedded in legislation and is dependent on the discretion of Committee members. The Declaration was not included in the definition of human rights in the Human Rights (Parliamentary Scrutiny) Act 2011 (Cth) (Scrutiny Act)^[18] and I believe this is a missed opportunity to consider the unique context of the rights of Indigenous peoples. I reiterate my recommendation from the Social Justice Report 2012 that the Declaration be included in the definition of human rights in the Scrutiny Act.^[19]

I am also concerned that the National Human Rights Action Plan remains silent on the Declaration. Given the Government’s commitment to reconciliation and its recognition that giving practical effect to the Declaration provides opportunities for positive engagement, this seems to me to be an inconsistent approach.

In chapters 4 and 5, I discuss ways that the principles in the Declaration can operate in practice; these include case studies on how we consult about and draft legislation, ways that we implement policies, and how business can engage with our communities.

(b) Reforming the Australian Constitution

Constitutional reform has been a key component of my agenda to reset and build relationships between Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples and all other Australians. A referendum to include Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples in the Constitution has the potential to do that; it is an opportunity to redefine our national identity based on recognition, respect and inclusion of Australia’s First Peoples.

The campaign to reform the Australian Constitution to recognise Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples is being embraced by our communities and organisations, as well as the wider public and business groups. Importantly, this is one of few issues that brought parties together in what was considered the most volatile Parliament since Federation. There was no better example of this support from all parties for a referendum to change the Constitution than when the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples Recognition Act 2013 (Cth) (Act of Recognition) was passed unanimously in both Houses of Parliament in March this year.

Speaking in support of the Act of Recognition, then Prime Minister Julia Gillard said:

...the government has advanced this bill for an act of recognition, to assure Indigenous people that our purpose of [constitutional] amendment remains unbroken...This bill is thus an act of preparation and anticipation. In this legislation, we – the nation’s 226 legislators – will serve as proxies for Australia’s 14 million voters, bridging the time between now and referendum day.^[20]

Following Julia Gillard to also support the bill, then Opposition Leader Tony Abbott said:

...our challenge is to do now in these times what should have been done 200 or 100 years ago to acknowledge Aboriginal people in our country’s foundation document. In short, we need to atone for the omissions and for the hardness of heart of our forebears to enable us all to embrace the future as a united people.

I believe that we are equal to this task of completing our Constitution rather than changing it. The next parliament will, I trust, finish the work that this one has begun.^[21]

It is crucial that this bipartisanship is maintained in the new Parliament.

I therefore welcome Prime Minister Abbott’s commitment to constitutional reform, promising that ‘within 12 months we will publish a proposal for constitutional recognition and we will establish a bipartisan process to try and bring that about as soon as possible.’^[22]

In late 2010, then Prime Minister Gillard appointed an Expert Panel on Constitutional Recognition of Indigenous Australians (the Expert Panel). This Panel was given the responsibility of reporting to the Government on options for constitutional change surrounding Indigenous constitutional recognition and was to include advice as to the level of support from Indigenous people and the broader community for each option by December 2011.

The Expert Panel did their work over 14 months and held more than 250 consultations with experts and members of the Australian community. They undertook an incredibly robust and considered process, using four principles to guide the development of recommendations. Any proposal to be put forward had to:

• contribute to a more unified and reconciled nation
• be of benefit to and accord with the wishes of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples
• be capable of being supported by an overwhelming majority of Australians from across the political and social spectrums
• be technically and legally sound.^[23]

Text Box 3.2 contains the Expert Panel’s recommendations for constitutional reform.

 

A Joint Select Committee on Constitutional Recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples was established in late 2012 with a mandate to ‘work to build a secure strong multi-partisan Parliamentary consensus around the timing, specific content and wording of referendum proposals for Indigenous constitutional recognition.’^[25] It was also asked to consider ‘the recommendations of the Expert Panel on Constitutional Recognition of Indigenous Australians on the process for the referendum.’^[26]

In developing the question that will be put to the people, I urge the Government to reconstitute the Joint Select Committee as a matter of urgency and require that it builds on the work of the Expert Panel to ensure that the progress for a referendum does not lose momentum.

As stated earlier, in March this year we witnessed a historic step toward a referendum when the Act of Recognition was passed unanimously through Federal Parliament. This Act provides acknowledgement of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples’ unique place as Australia’s First Peoples.^[27] It also prescribes that a review will be commenced considering proposals for constitutional change and their likely levels of support in the community.^[28] A report on this review must be completed by 28 September 2014 and the Minister must table the report in Parliament within 15 sitting days of its receipt.^[29]

The Act of Recognition is a welcome development but it should be seen for what it is, an important early step on the pathway to the referendum where each and every Australian voter will get a say on this recognition question.
Getting the referendum question right is of the utmost importance to its ultimate success and as can be seen above, there have been several processes undertaken already that will guide this work.

However, this work should sit alongside a campaign to raise awareness of the need for recognition. As reported in the Social Justice Report 2010, George Williams and David Hume have identified some critical factors that are essential for a successful referendum. They include:

• bipartisan support
• popular ownership
• popular education.^[30]

Having achieved strong multi-party support for this recognition, we cannot ignore the other factors critical to a successful referendum – popular ownership and support.
The previous Government allocated funding to this task and engaged Reconciliation Australia, who in turn established Recognise as the national campaign for constitutional recognition. Recognise is literally taking this campaign all around Australia on a ‘Journey to Recognition’ to raise awareness of the need for constitutional reform.

It is essential that the new Government commit to adequately resourcing this campaign.

If constitutional change is about inclusiveness and is to be supported, the participation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples throughout the process, from the development of the question and throughout the campaign is non-negotiable. A key recommendation of the Expert Panel’s report was that if changes other than those recommended in their report are to be put to a referendum, the Government ‘should consult further with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples and their representative organisations to ascertain their views in relation to any such alternative proposal.’^[31]
Promising progress has been made in this nation building journey to make the Constitution a document inclusive of all Australians. It’s a journey that will mark our maturity as a nation and one that has the potential to reset relationships between Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples, the Government and the broader population.

(c) A national body representing Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders

In 2010, the Congress was established as the national representative body for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples.

While Congress is still a relatively new organisation, it is steadily growing its membership of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peak bodies, organisations and individuals, and providing leadership on decisions that affect our peoples and communities. The work of Congress is underpinned by the Declaration and its constitution requires that it pursues the rights of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples.^[32]

In the Social Justice Report 2012, I noted that Congress embodies the principles of legitimate Indigenous governance:

Its organisational governance is designed specifically to support community needs and aspirations...Underpinning its design and operation in all respects is community governance and ultimately self-determination.^[33]

I also said that the establishment of Congress provides an opportunity for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples to develop a new relationship with government – a relationship based on partnership and genuine engagement with our peoples. This is an opportunity to put the Declaration into practice.

For this to happen, it is critical that all levels of governments support and engage with Congress in accordance with the principles and protocols set out in A Framework for Engagement between Australian Government Agencies and The National Congress of Australia’s First Peoples.^[34] Similarly, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander individuals and organisations also need to support and join Congress.

To truly represent the voices of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders and participate in decision-making with governments on an equal footing, Congress must have access to a high level of engagement with governments through the Council of Australian Governments (COAG).

To put this into an historical context, the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission (ATSIC) was an observer at COAG. It is therefore appropriate that Congress also be acknowledged as the national representative body of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples to participate at this level of decision-making.

Finally, I believe that Congress must be given time to fully establish itself. Reflecting back on the experience of ATSIC, I believe it was never given this opportunity. Organisations evolve over time and I believe that Congress has the fundamentals for robust representation and good governance.

(d) Closing the Gap

Closing the Gap^[35] is a commitment by all the Commonwealth and State/Territory governments, through COAG, to improve the lives of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. I welcome the progress made through the partnership by all Australian governments with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities and our representative organisations. It was particularly encouraging that COAG agreed to set specific timeframes for achieving six Closing the Gap targets relating to health, education and employment outcomes.^[36] These targets are important because they enable us to measure progress over time and foster outcomes-focused policy.

The Close the Gap Campaign, discussed in chapter 1, was influential in getting governments to make these commitments. Indeed, the call for governments to commit to closing the life expectancy gap by 2030 lies at the heart of the Closing the Gap agenda. I believe that the Closing the Gap framework has been another watershed moment in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander affairs. It provides a firm non-partisan foundation upon which we can build.

I urge all Australian governments to continue along the path set in the Closing the Gap commitments. There is no need to radically change direction; long-term commitments require long-term policy continuity. We must remain aware that the magnitude of the problems facing our communities requires sustained effort. This point is also made in the Strategic Review of Indigenous Expenditure:

The deep-seated and complex nature of Indigenous disadvantage calls for policies and programs which are patient and supportive of enduring change (including in the attitudes, expectations and behaviours of Indigenous people themselves). A long-term investment approach is needed, accompanied by a sustained process of continuous engagement.^[37]

None of this is to say we cannot improve what we are doing and be more targeted in our efforts to close the gap, but I believe we are heading in the right direction.

(i) Progress in meeting Closing the Gap targets

Five years in, there is some good progress to celebrate. The COAG Reform Council Indigenous Reform 2011–2012 report found positive outcomes in the targets around child deaths, early childhood education and Year 12 attainment:

Australia is on track to halve the gap in child death rates by 2018. From 1998 to 2011 the gap between the Indigenous and non-Indigenous child (0-4 years) death rates reduced from 139.0 to 109.9 deaths per 100 000...

In 2011, 91% of Indigenous children in remote communities were enrolled in a preschool program in the year before formal schooling. This result is close to COAG’s target – only 4% improvement is needed to achieve 95% enrolment by 2013.

From 2006 to 2011, the rate of Indigenous Year 12 or equivalent attainment rose from 47.4% to 53.9%.^[38]

However, at the same time we are seeing some worrying trends, particularly in education indicators, death rates and employment outcomes. Again, the COAG Reform Council found:

Between 2008 and 2012, for Years 3, 5 and 7, the national gap narrowed in reading but widened in numeracy. For Year 9 the gap widened in reading and narrowed in numeracy...

Only the Northern Territory is on track to close the gap in Indigenous death rates within a generation (by 2031)...

From 2006 to 2011, the employment gap widened on three measures – employment, unemployment and labour force participation.^[39]

In health, we are seeing reductions in child mortality rates and we are on track to meet that particular target by 2018.^[40] Efforts to address child mortality rates are critical building blocks in efforts to close the life expectancy gap and in time will help drive improvements for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. Nevertheless, progress towards closing the life expectancy gap is proving to be more difficult.^[41]

It is not enough to simply report on trends. More analysis needs to take place to find out why we are struggling to meet targets. This work needs to be done as early as possible in order to make sure resources are directed effectively.

Again, we must not lose sight of the fact that this is a long term, generational approach to address disadvantage. I am encouraged when I hear both sides of politics frankly recognising the enormity of the task. It shows that they are taking the challenges seriously but also acknowledging the nation-building potential of this program of work. Addressing disadvantage is not just an ‘Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander issue’; raising our life chances contributes to the overall well-being of our nation.

I am very supportive of the practice of the Prime Minister providing an annual report on Closing the Gap in Parliament. Not only does it keep the issues on the national agenda but it promotes transparency and accountability. Prime Minister Abbott has also laid out his commitment to this approach:

So often the statistics are a record of what government is doing, rather than a record of how people are living. It is excellent...that we are moving towards halving the gap in so many of these areas, but a gap which is halved is not a gap which has been closed and, in the end, it is not good enough to merely halve the gap – we need to close the gap.^[42]

As we make progress towards the targets, I would also like to see us aim higher as we achieve milestones. For example, given the strong progress in achieving enrolment in preschool, we should now set our sights higher and adjust the target to reflect actual attendance and achievement, not just enrolment. After all, what is important is for children to be actually participating in quality early childhood education programs, which will equip them for the early years of school – not just increasing the names recorded on an enrolment list.

Of course targets must be matched by action. There are two current developments that are critical for enduring change in achieving health equality:

• The renewal with adequate funding of the expired National Partnership Agreement on Closing the Gap in Indigenous Health Outcomes (Indigenous Health NPA).
• The implementation of the National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Health Plan 2013-2023 (Health Plan).

If supported by necessary funding and effectively implemented, the Health Plan can drive real improvements to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander health and life expectancy. The Close the Gap Campaign Steering Committee, of which I am a Co-Chair, has called on the new Australian Government to take action in relation to the Indigenous Health NPA and the Health Plan in the first 100 days of Government.^[43]

(ii) Justice targets

I am pleased that there is bipartisan support for the inclusion of justice targets in the Closing the Gap agenda.^[44]

Social Justice Commissioners have been calling for justice targets since 2009^[45] to reduce the imprisonment rate of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people and enhance community safety. While we have neglected targets for justice issues, there has been a danger that this has undermined our efforts to meet the other targets set in the Closing the Gap agenda. This is because we know that imprisonment has such a profoundly destructive impact, not only on individuals, but on the entire community. It affects areas such as health, housing, education and employment – all the building blocks of creating stable and productive lives.

I welcome the announcement of an advisory group, led by Priscilla Collins, CEO of the North Australian Aboriginal Justice Agency (NAAJA) and hope to see this work continue without delay under the new government.^[46]

Justice targets need to include obvious indicators such as rates of imprisonment, recidivism and victimisation but to be really successful we need to look more holistically. We know a lot about the pathways that lead our people to involvement with the criminal justice system. I would like to see indicators such as involvement with the child protection system, use of diversionary programs, successful transition to school and employment also considered.

As we have learnt from the Closing the Gap experience so far, targets are just the start. Justice targets should be set as part of a fully funded Safe Communities National Partnership Agreement as part of the Closing the Gap strategy. Similarly, it would be disappointing to see justice targets set without adequately resourced services, particularly legal and advocacy services. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Legal Services and Family Violence Prevention Services have provided strong leadership on these issues and will do much of the heavy lifting in actually achieving targets.

(e) Native title reform

Twenty years after the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth) (Native Title Act) was enacted, it is now recognised by Australians that native title acknowledges the fundamental human rights of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples to our lands, territories and resources. But while the recognition of native title has the potential to generate social, cultural and economic benefits for current and future generations, we need to reform the native title system if we are to fully realise these benefits.^[47]

Recent efforts to reform the Native Title Act have been disappointing. I am extremely concerned that the Native Title Amendment Bill 2012 (Cth) has not been passed by Parliament. This is despite recommendations to pass the Bill by the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs (HSCATSIA) and – with minor changes – the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee.^[48] These amendments to the Native Title Act are on the right track and I strongly encourage the Government to reintroduce this Bill and support its passage through Parliament.

The Native Title Amendment Bill 2012:

• enables parties to agree to disregard the historical extinguishment of native title over an area that has been set aside or vested to preserve the natural environment such as parks and reserves
• clarifies the meaning of good faith under the right to negotiate regime, and the conduct and effort required of parties in seeking to reach agreement
• streamlines processes for Indigenous Land Use Agreements (ILUAs).^[49]

Importantly, these amendments are compatible with our human rights to enjoy and benefit from culture and to self-determination that are contained in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and the Declaration.

In June, I welcomed the announcement by the Attorney-General for an inquiry by the Australian Law Reform Commission (ALRC) into two specific areas of the native title system.^[50] This inquiry provides us with an opportunity to comprehensively examine what is working in native title and what needs to change.

As I said at the HSCATSIA Roundtable on the Native Title Amendment Bill 2012 in February this year, a constructive analysis of the native title system needs to start with the issues we can agree on. For example, we can agree that native title is not going away – it has been a consistent feature in our landscape over the past 20 years and it will continue forever.

We also agree that we want to see our native title determined in shorter timeframes and with less expense for all parties.

And we can agree that we need to change the status quo of the Native Title Act as it is currently drafted.^[51]

It is my view that the key priorities for native title reform are to:

• Establish a presumption of continuous connection in relation to a native title claim once native title claimants have met the requirements of the registration test.^[52]
• Enable native title holders to govern their lands, territories and resources through their Prescribed Bodies Corporate (PBCs).

We also need to ensure that outcomes from on-going reviews of the native title system address native title reform in a coordinated manner.

(i) Establish a presumption of continuity for native title

The process to prove our native title has been extensively criticised by international human rights mechanisms, prominent leaders within Australia and Social Justice Commissioners.^[53] This criticism focuses on the high level of information that native title claim groups need to provide to demonstrate continuing connection to their lands and waters, in accordance with their traditional laws and customs, from the time of British colonisation.^[54]

This process is particularly unjust considering the history of government policies that removed many Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders from their country, thereby undermining their capacity to prove continuous connection to their lands and waters. Ironically, the burden to provide information proving continuous connection is then placed on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples – despite governments often holding written information and records.

Establishing a presumption of continuous connection for native title would ease the burden of this onerous process on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples by altering the balance of power in native title negotiations.

There have been a number of proposals over the past few years that seek to establish a presumption of continuity for native title.^[55] These proposals, with minor variations, set out establishing a presumption of continuous connection to the land in relation to a native title claim once the claim meets the requirements of the registration test and is placed on the Register of Native Title Claims.

The onus would then shift onto the respondent, usually State/Territory governments, to demonstrate that there is evidence of ‘substantial interruption’ in the acknowledgment of traditional laws or the observation of traditional customs that sets aside the presumption. This will clarify that the onus rests upon the respondent to prove a substantial interruption rather than upon the claimants to prove continuity.^[56]

(ii) Enable native title holders to govern their lands, territories and resources through their Prescribed Bodies Corporate

In the Native Title Report 2012, I discussed the critical role PBCs play in managing the rights and interests of native title holders following a determination of native title.^[57] A recurring concern from around the country is that many PBCs do not have the support and resources they require to meet their administrative, legal and financial functions, but I note that this issue is currently being examined as part of the Government’s review of the roles and functions of native title organisations.^[58]

If we are to realise the benefits of our native title, then we need to invest in the governance of native title right now. This means that we need to build the capacity of PBCs to support native title holders to maximise opportunities from their native title.

(iii) Coordinate native title working groups, reviews and inquiries

A number of aspects of the native title system are being reviewed by the Government. This includes:

• the tax treatment of native title payments and how these payments can better benefit Indigenous communities^[59]
• a review of the roles and functions of native title organisations conducted by Deloitte Access Economics^[60]
• an inquiry into the native title system undertaken by the Australian Law Reform Commission.^[61]

It is essential that these various working groups, reviews and inquiries work together. This will provide a consistent approach to ensuring that the native title system provides Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples with the opportunities to achieve our economic, social and cultural aspirations.

(f) Confronting racism

Racism has frequently been in the headlines over the past year; often it has affected Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. We’ve seen online ‘memes’ featuring derogatory images of Aboriginal people,^[62] a group of prominent Aboriginal actors refused service by numerous taxis in the Melbourne CBD,^[63] and a Western Australian university student union publication containing offensive stereotypes of Aboriginal people.^[64] In the very week the Australian Human Rights Commission (the Commission) launched part of the Racism. It Stops with Me campaign, one of the key advocates, champion Sydney Swans player Adam Goodes was racially abused during a football match and again during the media commentary that followed.^[65]

Far from being isolated, I would argue that such incidents are a regular occurrence for many Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in this country. In the words of the Victorian Aboriginal Child Care Agency, ‘racism is a constant “background noise” in the lives of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people.’^[66]

It is good that these incidents have been brought to light – they have served as a useful prompt for public reflection about what racism looks like and why it is not okay, particularly the ‘casual racism’ inflicted on many of us on a daily basis. But these discussions do not seem to have moved us much further towards a real understanding of the harm that racism causes and a genuine commitment, as a community, to do something about it.

And the focus on these high profile incidents does not reflect the silent, pervasive and systemic discrimination we see in complaints to the Commission under the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (Cth). In 2012–13, 35.5% of the complaints received by the Commission were made by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people.^[67] These are the experiences which lock us out of economic opportunities, damage our physical and mental health and undermine our trust in, and connection to, the broader community.

Ample evidence of these impacts is outlined in the submission to the National Anti-Racism Strategy made by Congress:

From the initial engagement between First Peoples and Europeans, through more than two centuries of government legislation and policies, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples have been discriminated against, denied their human rights and deprived of the opportunity to participate in Australian society as equal citizens.

Dispossessed of their lands under the erroneous concept of Terra Nullius, denied recognition in the nation’s founding document, subjected to decades of controlling and/or exclusionary legislation and polices and the forcible removal of children from their families and communities, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples have a long and painful history of racism in this country.^[68]

So what do we do about it? I believe the National Anti-Racism Strategy is a good start. In its second year of implementation, the Strategy and its public awareness campaign Racism. It Stops with Me has gained strong support from many sectors of the Australian community and are serving as an important focal point for individual and collective action to counter racism. At the very least I would recommend ongoing support for the Strategy by the Government.

But we also know that political leadership on these issues is vital. I would like to see a commitment from our leaders to set the bar higher in public discourse – to say, and to mean, that racism begins to stop with them.

3.3 Communities in control

While staying the course in areas that are already on the right track requires commitment and patience to see through some important issues, helping communities to be in control is where real vision and dedication comes in. If we can get this right, it is where I believe we will see the most profound changes over time.

What do I mean by our communities being in control?

One way of addressing this question is to look to the Declaration for guidance and to use the principles we have developed to give it effect across Australia. As I discussed earlier in this chapter, these principles are:

• self-determination
• participation in decision-making, underpinned by the concepts of free, prior and informed consent and good faith
• respect for and protection of culture
• equality and non-discrimination.

Governments must be prepared to ‘let go’ of many of the decisions that affect our lives and national policies and programs must be designed in a way that allows the greatest flexibility for implementation at the community level. Professor Megan Davis argues that we must ‘work in partnership with the state (the state as a junior partner)’^[69] to facilitate this.

In other words, governments must be prepared for our communities to participate in decisions that affect them. Again, Professor Davis notes that:

governments cannot truly tackle disadvantage or close the gap without allowing communities more responsibility in the decisions that affect their lives and this includes service delivery.^[70]

Our communities must step up and take control and responsibility for, as is said in Article 4 of the Declaration, ‘matters relating to their internal and local affairs’.

In other words, our communities must start exercising self-determination.

Over the years, the term ‘self-determination’ has fallen in and out of fashion. This is a shame because far from being a fad in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander affairs, it is a key human right that applies to all peoples. It is the first article in both the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant of Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, and in the Declaration^[71] it is framed in a way that refers to Indigenous peoples. I see it firstly, as a human right that accrues to all Australians and then secondly, my mind turns to what it means for us as Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples.

While there has been a lot of talk about self-determination over the years, I would argue that comprehensive self-determination has never really been given a chance to work for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples in this country. I say this with immense appreciation and admiration for the individuals and organisations that work very hard to try and enable and exercise self-determination.

But these pockets of good practice are based mainly on the energy, goodwill and commitments of individuals rather than the systemic embedding of this right in our governance structures and in government institutions.

Professor Davis articulates another challenge of self-determination; it must reflect our experiences and needs:

Self-determination must become more specific and personalised in order to be capable of reflecting what self-determination means for Aboriginal peoples in their daily lives. And we cannot leave it to the state to do that for us. We must do that ourselves as Aboriginal people.^[72]As I have noted earlier in this chapter, the Declaration Dialogues will inform this common understanding.

Ultimately, I want to see our communities organise themselves in ways that they choose, in accordance with the principles of good governance and in ways that ensure our most vulnerable, our elders, our women and our children, and not just the strong alone, are being heard in our communities and organisations. I want these structures to be recognised and respected by governments, built on relationships of mutual respect and good faith, and I want community and government engagement to take place at a more localised level.

Prime Minister Abbott has recognised the need to shift the focus from Canberra to the community, stating:

The real challenges are not just in this building; they are in the country, the communities, the suburbs and the regions of our nation. Real change does not happen in this building, although it may start here. Real change happens in places where Australians live.^[73]

Finally, I want to see our communities positioned to make this change happen through local decision-making so that they remain in control of decisions affecting them.

Once this is happening we will see empowered communities exercising real self-determination.

(a) Our governance is determined by us

Part of the failure of previous attempts to place our communities in control has been poor governance. In the Social Justice Report 2012, I said:

The exercise of self-determination can only be achieved if we have good community governance. This means the existence of ‘effective, accountable and legitimate systems and processes’ where Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples can ‘articulate their interests, exercise their rights and responsibilities and reconcile their differences.’^[74]

In the Social Justice and Native Title Reports 2012, I also put forward a model of effective, culturally relevant and legitimate Indigenous governance.^[75]

This model acknowledged that the ways that our communities and organisations make decisions must be grounded in our right to self-determination. To reset the way in which we make decisions, we must take responsibility for our social problems and find ways to deal with these problems ourselves. We need to turn our rights into outcomes that reflect our aspirations as Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples.

Governments, NGOs and businesses that engage with our communities have a role to support – not to direct – our decisions and decision-making processes and to not create additional strains and stresses on our communities.^[76] And governments need to make it easier for us to tackle our problems and run services for our peoples by reducing the administrative ‘red-tape’ that our organisations have to navigate.

In turn, we must make sure that decision-making processes are open, transparent and embrace all members of our communities. We need to establish dispute resolution procedures that encompass our cultural values and we also must be accountable for our decisions, but this process should not be so onerous that it stifles our ability to achieve anything.

Examples of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities and organisations that are governing in a manner that is consistent with the principle of self-determination are described in Text Box 3.3.

 

(b) Our rights are our responsibility too

The responsibility of governments to better engage with communities to realise our rights has been dealt with extensively. In fact, probably every Social Justice and Native Title Report has been concerned with this issue in some way over the past 20 years. I stand by these recommendations and continue to see that the fundamental responsibility of government is to meet all its human rights obligations to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples.

But if we accept that putting communities in control is critical, we need to advance the conversation to talk about our responsibility as Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities in achieving these rights as well. We have often been our own worst enemy when it comes to lateral violence and other conflicts in our communities. These conflicts have held us back from realising our rights, exercising self-determination and improving our life situations.^[81]

I understand that these comments may provoke strong reactions from some parts of our communities. Suspicion is often expressed when people start talking about communities taking responsibility because it can be conceived as unfair when so many of the challenges facing us are related to a history of colonisation and lack of proper government engagement.

Let me be clear that governments have the responsibility for ensuring that our rights are realised through proper engagement, investment and respect for our cultures. But for real self-determination to be realised and to work we must accept responsibility to take an active leadership role, and in essence, take control.

So how do we do this? One of the first practical steps is that when we make decisions, we need to ensure, as I say above, that the most vulnerable in our communities – the women, children and elderly – are heard and protected and this may mean balancing different and competing rights. Finding this right balance is not new in human rights. Sometimes the process of getting the balance between competing rights is the best indicator of a functional self-determining community or society. It is how these discussions and debates are facilitated, conducted and agreed that will mark the strength of a community.

For example, I have spoken to the Ngaanyatjarra Pitjantjatjara Yankunytjatjara (NPY) Women’s Council who considered the safety and security of women and children over-rode the ability of members of five communities to purchase take-away alcohol from a roadhouse near Uluru in the Northern Territory.

I was informed they undertook consultations within those five communities, and worked with government and in partnership with the roadhouse owners. The net result is the special licencing conditions for the roadhouse have been in place for about 14 years and an indication of their acceptance is that in that time, there has not been one formal complaint about them from any of those five communities.

This approach is not new. Every day I’m meeting with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander leaders and community members who are stepping up and confronting these challenges and making these hard decisions.

I have also been watching the Empowered Communities proposal, led by Noel Pearson, with interest. There are synergies between my ideas and this approach, particularly around the need to challenge communities to re-establish social norms through ‘Indigenous-led responsibility’^[82] at the regional and local levels. I have been saying for a long time that we, as Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, have to decide what is and isn’t acceptable in our communities.

It is also good to see that Empowered Communities is based on communities choosing to opt-in to these proposals and there is no centralist approach with particular communities being ‘anointed’ by Government or people in Canberra. As the proposals develop it will be important to see how the consultation processes ensure that there has been real community consensus going forward.

The emphasis on measurable outcomes and accountability is crucial and fundamental to sustained outcomes. Again, I hope that the data, evaluations and general lessons on implementation will be freely shared to enable other communities to consider this model. While there are eight communities currently involved, we also need to have an eye to how other communities are faring. Empowered Communities is an exciting proposal but I would not want to see other positive community processes and work get left behind.

(c) Allocation of resources on the basis of need

Our Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities are incredibly diverse. It worries me that one way the public discourse articulates this difference is through a remote/rural and urban divide. It is as if there is some magical imaginary line that once crossed, your situation either vastly improves or by the same magnitude, deteriorates.

For instance in chapter 1, I talk about the Family Violence Prevention Legal Services (FVPLS) being the main providers of services to the victims of domestic violence. Despite the critical work that these services do in supporting victims, there are only 14 FVPLS in Australia covering 31 regional and remote areas, but one of the funding guidelines limits the provision of services to non-urban areas. As noted in chapter 1, it is of grave concern that this policy fails to recognise many of the barriers that Aboriginal women who live in urban areas face when accessing mainstream service providers. This is particularly concerning given that 33% of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people live in capital cities.^[83]

I think we can agree the magnitude of need in rural and remote communities is both undeniable and indisputable. Access to services including health care, education and housing as well as job opportunities lags behind the standards of the vast majority of Australians take for granted.^[84] The ability to recruit the right people and the excessive costs of living compounds the already high level of disadvantage.

Similarly I think we can agree there is also social deprivation in our urban communities.^[85] Some urban pockets have similar levels of poor health, lack of education, unemployment and imprisonment as some remote communities. We simply can’t ignore these issues because they occur in urban, rather than remote, areas.

Noel Pearson, writing about his visit to Redfern earlier this year, said:

There is tremendous need in urban communities, and places like Redfern deserve proper government attention to their aspirations.

...there are many communities who are as disadvantaged and as distressed as some of the most parlous remote communities. What is done in urban areas will often need to be different from remote and regional areas, but turning a blind eye to these communities as if they are prospering in the mainstream is wrong.^[86]

Despite the stereotypes that exist about all Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people living in the bush, the fact is that only around 20% live in remote areas, while almost 60% live in major cities and inner regional areas.^[87]

One way of looking at this issue is through the lens of availability and accessibility.

In remote communities, much of the disadvantage boils down to a lack of availability – whether we are talking about employment, education, housing, child protection, health or any number of services. We are playing catch up in our efforts to increase the availability of basic services to remote communities to ensure they have the same opportunities as other Australians.

It is promising to see increased investment through the Northern Territory Intervention, Stronger Futures and National Partnership Agreement on Remote Service Delivery across Australia.

In urban communities, there is generally a greater range of services and opportunities on offer; however, accessibility can also operate as a barrier. Indeed, evidence suggests that Aboriginal and Torres people in urban areas are less satisfied with their access to health care than those from remote communities.^[88] Consistent with a human rights-based approach to health,^[89] barriers to health care access can be described in terms of availability, affordability, acceptability and appropriateness.^[90] For example, services might not be welcoming or adapted to the specific needs of our people. Or to put it another way, they might not be culturally secure. They may be offering fantastic programs or opportunities but unless there is a culturally secure environment, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples are unlikely to access them and therefore they (the services) are unlikely to meet the needs of individuals and the community in those places.

There is a growing Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander middle class in our urban communities. For the most part they have access to education, employment and all the services and opportunities to the same standard as what is available to mainstream Australia. We should be proud of these achievements born out of hard work.

But if we are to close the gap by 2030 effort must be directed at communities in all parts of the country, be it in Lajamanu in the Northern Territory or in Mt Druitt in Western Sydney. For this effort to be effective, we must understand the differences between these situations. In the second preambular paragraph of the Declaration, the right to be different is addressed. It says:

Affirming that indigenous peoples are equal to all other peoples, while recognizing the right of all peoples to be different, to consider themselves different, and to be respected as such,^[91]

When I engage with the government sector, I explain that my interpretation of this right places a duty on policy, program and systems developers to design and implement services that cater for difference. It should not be up to the people who are different to navigate their way through a system that is not designed for their particular situation.

The often repeated mantra of ‘one size doesn’t fit all’ is the embodiment of this right and it means working with communities to determine their needs and to design with them, the programs that have the best chance of addressing that need.

It means national policies are designed in a way that allows for maximum flexibility for interpretation and implementation at the local level.

Finally, it means moving beyond this false urban/remote dichotomy to start designing and delivering programs to the places where and in ways they are needed.

(d) We must provide culturally secure services – building the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander capacity

All over Australia, governments are out-sourcing the provision of services.^[92] In my opinion the rationale for this ranges from ideological, fiscal, evidence-based, to pure pragmatism. It is a trend that is well advanced and unlikely to be reversed. The consequence of this devolution of responsibility has been the rise of NGOs that have successfully tendered to provide services.

My concern is that as I travel across Australia, I am hearing stories that some NGOs are edging out Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander services. Many of our services do fantastic work, employing the right people in the right places to make change. However, it appears that some of our organisations struggle to compete with the large NGOs in terms of cost, capacity and evaluation.

Even more worrying, I am hearing that some non-Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander organisations are not operating in a culturally secure way. Issues have been raised about these organisations not always having the requisite knowledge of local cultures, needs and relationships to make their service effective. This can make services less accessible and result in fewer Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people using them. This is not to say that these practices are reflective of all NGOs working with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities. Many NGOs are doing great work in our communities. However, we must always be mindful that services are delivered in a culturally secure way whilst building the capacity of the local community.

While we need to build the capacity of our organisations to be competitive in these processes, those mainstream organisations that work in and for our communities need to develop their cultural security and do their work in line with the principles of the Declaration.

Done well, this can facilitate a mutually beneficial relationship between the Aboriginal community controlled sector and the NGO sector. Aboriginal organisations can help NGOs increase their cultural security in delivering services to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. At the same time, NGOs have the experience to complement the capacity of the Aboriginal community controlled sector in areas like administration, best practice programs, evaluation and organisational governance. This is how genuine partnership works.

Reflecting the importance of this issue, in February 2013 a Forum was held in Alice Springs, bringing together non-Aboriginal NGOs operating in the Northern Territory along with the Territory’s Aboriginal peak bodies.^[93] The Forum initiated the development of key principles to guide new ways of working between NGOs and Aboriginal organisations in the Northern Territory to ensure collaboration and partnership.^[94] The primary objective of the NGO Principles’ is to put ‘Aboriginal people back into the driver’s seat’ in regards to service delivery and community development.^[95] I believe that these principles, if widely adopted and implemented, could facilitate the much needed mutually beneficial relationships between the Aboriginal community controlled sector and the NGO sector. The NGO Principles have been sent to non-Indigenous NGOs for endorsement and it is encouraging to note that a number of these have already endorsed the principles.^[96]

I am also encouraged to see that this type of partnership is indeed already happening in some sectors. Text Box 3.4 discusses a partnership in out of home care in NSW.

 

Of course, it is not just NGOs that must ensure culturally secure services. Governments also have an obligation to ensure cultural security in service delivery and the cultural competency of their staff to work with our communities. I have previously written about this in the context of addressing lateral violence.^[99] In particular, governments can improve their cultural competence through a commitment to effectively engage,^[100] increasing an Indigenous presence within government^[101] and building capacity through the sort of partnerships^[102] mentioned above.

Governments ultimately decide who receives funding for provision of services. I would also like to see cultural security recognised in the tender, funding and selection processes. Businesses can increase cultural competence by including it in industry standards. This will ensure the most skilled and accessible organisations provide services, which in turn leads to better outcomes for our people.

3.4 Conclusion

This chapter reflects both the opportunities and challenges as we chart a road map for the future. The opportunities are great. Never before have we seen the level of bipartisanship and commitment around addressing Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander disadvantage and constitutional recognition.

However, the challenge is to ensure that we as Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people are not just passengers for this journey but are sitting in the driving seat.

When people ask me how I will know whether I have made a difference in this job, I tell them that it is something I’ll be able to measure when the kids born during my five years in this position turn 20 years of age. If we manage to stay the course with the things that are working and make the fundamental shift to putting our communities in control now, I am very optimistic that all of our children will be given the opportunity to grow up to be happy and healthy adults, proudly carrying our culture forward for generations to come. That is why it is so important we act now.

I make the following recommendations to Government:

(i) Support for existing policies and programs

Recommendation 3.1: The Australian Government continues the multi-party approach in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander affairs and any change to existing policies and programs is based on rigorous evidence and occurs in consultation with communities.

(ii) The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples

Recommendation 3.2: The Australian Government agrees to engage with the National Implementation Strategy to give effect to the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

Recommendation 3.3: The Australian Government amends the Human Rights (Parliamentary Scrutiny) Act 2011 (Cth) to include the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples in the definition of human rights.

(iii) Constitutional recognition

Recommendation 3.4: The Australian Government commits to the conduct of the referendum within this Parliamentary term by:

• treating the development of the referendum question and date as a matter of urgency, including by reconstituting the Joint Select Committee on Constitutional Recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples as soon as possible to ensure that progress to a referendum can continue with limited interruption
• ensuring the campaign to raise popular awareness and support of this issue is properly resourced.

Recommendation 3.5: If constitutional amendments proposed are different to those recommended in the Expert Report, the Australian Government consults with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples prior to going to Referendum.

(iv) National Congress of Australia’s First Peoples

Recommendation 3.6: The Australian Government continues to engage with the National Congress of Australia’s First Peoples in accordance with the principles and protocols set out in A Framework for Engagement between Australian Government Agencies and The National Congress of Australia’s First Peoples dated 5 September 2012.

Recommendation 3.7: The Australian Government invites the National Congress of Australia’s First Peoples to participate in relevant COAG processes.

(v) Closing the Gap

Recommendation 3.8: The Australian Government commits to the Closing the Gap agenda and the annual Closing the Gap Reporting to Parliament.

Recommendation 3.9: The Australian Government negotiates through COAG a new National Partnership Agreement on Closing the Gap in Indigenous Health Outcomes, with a minimum Commonwealth investment of $777 million over the next three years.

Recommendation 3.10: The Australian Government commits to supporting and implementing the National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Health Plan 2013–2023 in partnership with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples and their representatives.

Recommendation 3.11: The Australian Government finalises targets as part of the Closing the Gap Strategy focused on increasing community safety, reducing imprisonment rates and improving outcomes in child protection for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples.

(vi) Native title reform

Recommendation 3.12: The Australian Government reintroduces the Native Title Amendment Bill 2012 (Cth) and supports its passage through the Parliament.

Recommendation 3.13: The Australian Government considers the following outstanding recommendations in the Native Title Report 2009:

1. That the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth) be amended to provide for a shift in the burden of proof to the respondent once the native title applicant has met the relevant threshold requirements in the registration test.
2. That the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth) provide for presumptions in favour of native title claimants, including a presumption of continuity in the acknowledgment and observance of traditional law and custom and of the relevant society.

(vii) Racism

Recommendation 3.14: The Australian Government continues to support the National Anti-Racism Strategy.

---

^[1] M Dodson, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Justice Commission First Report 1993, Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission (1993). At http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/other/IndigLRes/1993/3/index.html (viewed 14 October 2013).
^[2] Attorney-General’s Department, National Human Rights Action Plan: Baseline Study (2011), p 4. At http://www.ag.gov.au/Consultations/Documents/NationalHumanRightsActionPlan/TheBaselineStudy.doc (viewed 8 October 2013); M Sawer, ‘Women and Government in Australia’ in Australian Bureau of Statistics, 1301.0 – Year Book Australia 2001 (2001). At http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/Previousproducts/1301.0Feature%20Article52001?opendocument&tabname=Summary&prodno=1301.0&issue=2001&num=&view (viewed 8 October 2013).
^[3] T Abbott, Indigenous Affairs – A Coalition Approach (Speech delivered at the Sydney Institute, Sydney, 15 March 2013). At http://www.liberal.org.au/latest-news/2013/03/15/tony-abbott-address-sydney-institute-sydney (viewed 12 September 2013).
^[4] The Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs (FaHCSIA) is now the Department of Social Services. In accordance with the Commonwealth of Australia Administrative Arrangements Order signed on 18 September 2013 and amended on 3 October 2013, Commonwealth Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander policy, programmes and service delivery, and the promotion of reconciliation are now matters dealt with by the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet. At http://www.dpmc.gov.au/parliamentary/ (viewed 15 October 2013).
^[5] P Karvelas, ‘Shergold brings PM and ATSIC nous to indigenous body’ in The Australian, 11 September 2013. At http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/election-2013/shergold-brings-pm-and-astic-nous-to-indigenous-body/story-fn9qr68y-1226716427267 (viewed 16 September 2013).
^[6] This section is based on M Gooda and K Kiss, The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples: Giving full effect to the Declaration – a National Strategy, Australian Human Rights Commission Discussion Paper (undated). This paper forms part of a series of ‘Dialogue Papers’ which will inform dialogue as part of the National Declaration Strategy process. The Dialogue Papers will be disseminated as part of this process.
^[7] Australian Human Rights Commission Act 1986 (Cth), s 46C(1).
^[8] M Gooda, The Practical Power of Human Rights (Speech delivered at Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, 10 May 2010). At http://www.humanrights.gov.au/news/speeches/practical-power-human-rights (viewed 1 October 2013).
^[9] M Dodson, ‘Foreword’ in Amnesty International Australia, United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (2001), p 3.
^[10] Joint Statement by the Australian Government and the Australian Human Rights Commission on Agenda Item 7 (Delivered at the twelfth session of the United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues, New York, 20-31 May 2013.)
^[11] International Law Association, Sofia Conference: Rights of Indigenous Peoples Final Report (2012), p 30.
^[12] Expert Mechanism on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, Summary of responses from the questionnaire seeking the views of States on best practices regarding possible appropriate measures and implementation strategies in order to attain the goals of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, fifth session, UN Doc A/HRC/EMRIP/2012/4 (2012), p 6. At http://www.ohchr.org/EN/Issues/IPeoples/EMRIP/Pages/Session5.aspx (viewed 7 September 2012).
^[13] Ministry of Government Administration, Reform and Church Affairs, Procedures for Consultations between State Authorities and the Sami Parliament [Norway] (2005). At http://www.regjeringen.no/en/dep/fad/Selected-topics/Sami-policy/midtspalte/PROCEDURES-FOR-CONSULTATIONS-BETWEEN-STA.html?id=450743 (viewed 7 September 2012).
^[14] Expert Mechanism on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, Summary of responses from the questionnaire seeking the views of States on best practices regarding possible appropriate measures and implementation strategies in order to attain the goals of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, fifth session, UN Doc A/HRC/EMRIP/2012/4 (2012), p 10. At http://www.ohchr.org/EN/Issues/IPeoples/EMRIP/Pages/Session5.aspx (viewed 7 September 2012).
^[15] Expert Mechanism on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, Summary of responses from the questionnaire seeking the views of States on best practices regarding possible appropriate measures and implementation strategies in order to attain the goals of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, fifth session, UN Doc A/HRC/EMRIP/2012/4 (2012), p 8. At http://www.ohchr.org/EN/Issues/IPeoples/EMRIP/Pages/Session5.aspx (viewed 7 September 2012).
^[16] M Gooda and K Kiss, The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples: Giving full effect to the Declaration – a National Strategy, Australian Human Rights Commission Discussion Paper (undated).
^[17] I have written extensively about these principles in the Social Justice and Native Title Reports over the past two years. For example, see M Gooda, Social Justice Report 2011, Australian Human Rights Commission (2011), ch 3; M Gooda, Native Title Report 2011, Australian Human Rights Commission (2011), ch 3; M Gooda, Social Justice Report 2012, Australian Human Rights Commission (2012), ch 2; M Gooda, Native Title Report 2012, Australian Human Rights Commission (2012), ch 2. At http://www.humanrights.gov.au/publications/aboriginal-and-torres-strait-islander-social-justice?source=our-work (viewed 9 October 2013).
^[18] Human Rights (Parliamentary Scrutiny) Act 2011 (Cth), s 3(1).
^[19] M Gooda, Social Justice Report 2012, Australian Human Rights Commission (2012), p 14. At http://www.humanrights.gov.au/publications/social-justice-report-2012 (viewed 10 October 2013). Also see Australian Human Rights Commission, Submission to the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee Human Rights (Parliamentary Scrutiny) Bill 2010 and the Human Rights (Parliamentary Scrutiny) (Consequential Provisions) Bill 2010 (7 July 2010), para 17. At http://www.humanrights.gov.au/legal/submissions/2010/20100707_human_rights.html  (viewed 11 October 2012).
^[20] Commonwealth of Australia, Parliamentary Debates, House of Representatives, 13 February 2013, p 1120 (The Hon Julia Gillard MP, Prime Minister).
^[21] Commonwealth of Australia, Parliamentary Debates, House of Representatives, 13 February 2013, p 1123 (The Hon Tony Abbott MP, Leader of the Opposition).
^[22] T Abbott, Address to the Garma Festival (Speech delivered at the Garma Festival, Gulkula, 10 August 2013). At http://www.tonyabbott.com.au/LatestNews/Speeches/tabid/88/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/9370/Address-to-the-Garma-Festival-Northern-Territory.aspx (viewed 12 September 2013).
^[23] Expert Panel on Constitutional Recognition of Indigenous Australians, Recognising Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples in the Constitution (2012), p 4. At http://www.recognise.org.au/final-report (viewed 19 September 2012).
^[24] Expert Panel on Constitutional Recognition of Indigenous Australians, Recognising Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples in the Constitution (2012), p xvii. At http://www.recognise.org.au/final-report (viewed 19 September 2012).
^[25] Commonwealth, Journals of the Senate: No 128, Senate, 28 November 2012, p 3471. At http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22chamber/journals/20121128_SJ128/0000%22 (viewed 15 October 2013).
^[26] Commonwealth, Journals of the Senate: No 128, Senate, 28 November 2012, p 3471. At http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22chamber/journals/20121128_SJ128/0000%22 (viewed 15 October 2013).
^[27] Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples Recognition Act 2012 (Cth), s 3.
^[28] Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples Recognition Act 2012 (Cth), s 4.
^[29] Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples Recognition Act 2012 (Cth), s 4.
^[30] G Williams and D Hume, People Power: The History and Future of the Referendum in Australia (2010), ch 7.
^[31] Expert Panel on Constitutional Recognition of Indigenous Australians, Recognising Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples in the Constitution (2012), p xix. At http://www.recognise.org.au/final-report (viewed 19 September 2012).
^[32] National Congress of Australia’s First Peoples, The Declaration. At http://nationalcongress.com.au/the-declaration/ (viewed 16 September 2013).
^[33] M Gooda, Social Justice Report 2012, Australian Human Rights Commission (2012), p 198. At http://www.humanrights.gov.au/publications/social-justice-report-2012 (viewed 15 October 2013).
^[34] National Congress of Australia’s First Peoples and Australian Government Agencies, A Framework for Engagement between Australian Government Agencies and The National Congress of Australia’s First Peoples (5 September 2012). At http://nationalcongress.com.au/engagement-framework/ (viewed 16 October 2013).
^[35] As explained in chapter 1, Closing the Gap is not to be confused with Close the Gap.
^[36] Targets contained in Council of Australian Governments, National Indigenous Reform Agreement. At http://www.federalfinancialrelations.gov.au/content/npa/health_indigenous/indigenous-reform/national-agreement_sept_12.pdf (viewed 25 September 2013).
^[37] Department of Finance and Deregulation, Strategic Review of Indigenous Expenditure: Report to the Australian Government (2010), p 15. At http://www.finance.gov.au/foi/disclosure-log/2011/docs/foi_10-27_strategic_review_indigenous_expenditure.pdf (viewed 8 October 2013).
^[38] COAG Reform Council, Indigenous Reform 2011-2012: Comparing performance across Australia (2013), p 6. At http://www.coagreformcouncil.gov.au/reports/indigenous-reform/indigenous-reform-2011-12-comparing-performance-across-australia (viewed 12 September 2013).
^[39] COAG Reform Council, Indigenous Reform 2011-2012: Comparing performance across Australia (2013), p 7. At http://www.coagreformcouncil.gov.au/reports/indigenous-reform/indigenous-reform-2011-12-comparing-performance-across-australia (viewed 12 September 2013).
^[40] COAG Reform Council, Indigenous Reform 2011-2012: Comparing performance across Australia (2013), p 21. At http://www.coagreformcouncil.gov.au/reports/indigenous-reform/indigenous-reform-2011-12-comparing-performance-across-australia (viewed 12 September 2013).
^[41] COAG Reform Council, Indigenous Reform 2011-2012: Comparing performance across Australia (2013), p 7. At http://www.coagreformcouncil.gov.au/reports/indigenous-reform/indigenous-reform-2011-12-comparing-performance-across-australia (viewed 12 September 2013).
^[42] Commonwealth, Parliamentary Debates, House of Representatives, 6 February 2013, p 162 (The Hon Tony Abbott MP).
^[43] Close the Gap Campaign Steering Committee, Building on the Close the Gap platform: Commitments for an incoming government (2013), pp 6-7. At https://www.humanrights.gov.au/close-gap-indigenous-health-campaign (viewed 11 September 2013).
^[44] For example, see P Karvelas, ‘Close gap targets “to include jail rate”’, The Australian, 23 April 2013. At http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/policy/close-gap-targets-to-include-jail-rate/story-fn9hm1pm-1226626219538# (viewed 18 October 2013).
^[45] T Calma, Social Justice Report 2009, Australian Human Rights Commission (2009). At http://www.humanrights.gov.au/publications/social-justice-report-2009 (viewed 15 October 2013).
^[46] North Australian Aboriginal Justice Agency, Macklin Sheds New Light on Justice Targets. At http://www.naaja.org.au/index.php/82-news/156-macklin-sheds-new-light-on-justice-plan.html (viewed 3 October 2013).
^[47] Australian Human Rights Commission, Submission to the Minister for Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs on the Draft Indigenous Economic Development Strategy (17 December 2010). At http://www.humanrights.gov.au/our-work/legal/submissions-sort-date-subject-committee-submitted/submissions-made-aboriginal-and (viewed 9 October 2013).
^[48] House of Representatives Standing Committee on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs, Parliament of Australia, Advisory Report: Native Title Amendment Bill 2012 (2013); Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee, Parliament of Australia, Senate Committee Report Native Title Amendment Bill 2012 [Provisions] (2013).
^[49] I discuss the details of the amendments in the Native Title Amendment Bill 2012 in Appendix 3.
^[50] M Dreyfus, Terms of Reference – Review of the Native Title Act 1993 (3 August 2013). At http://www.ag.gov.au/Consultations/Documents/AustralianLawReformCommissionnativetitleinquiry/ReviewoftheNativeTitleAct1993-finaltermsofreference-3August2013.PDF (viewed 9 October 2013). I discuss the Australian Law Reform Commission inquiry in Appendix 3.
^[51] Commonwealth, Standing Committee on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs, House of Representatives, 8 February 2013, p 2 (Mr Mick Gooda Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Justice Commissioner, Australian Human Rights Commission).
^[52] The registration test is a set of conditions in the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth) that are applied to all new native title determination applications – see National Native Title Tribunal, Native Title Claimant Applications: a guide to understanding the requirements of the registration test (2008). At http://www.nntt.gov.au/News-and-Communications/Publications/Documents/Booklets/Native%20title%20claimant%20applications%20April%202008.pdf (viewed 5 July 2013).
^[53] For example, see J Anaya, Report by the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights and fundamental freedoms of indigenous people, Situation of indigenous peoples in Australia, Report to the United Nations General Assembly Human Rights Council, fifteenth session UN Document A/HRC/15/37/Add. 4 (2010). At http://unsr.jamesanaya.org/country-reports/report-on-the-situation-of-indigenous-peoples-in-australia-2010 (viewed 8 July 2013); R French, Chief Justice of the High Court, Lifting the burden of native title: some modest proposals for improvement (Speech presented to Native Title Users Group, Adelaide July 2008); P Keating, ‘PM missed native title chance’, The Australian 25 February 2013; Native Title Reports 2002–2012. At http://www.humanrights.gov.au/publications/native-title-reports (viewed 15 October 2013).
^[54] Members of the Yorta Yorta Aboriginal Community v Victoria (2002) 214 CLR 422.
^[55] For example, T Calma, Native Title Report 2009, Australian Human Rights Commission (2010). At http://www.humanrights.gov.au/publications/native-title-report-2009-0 (viewed 5 July 2013); R French, Chief Justice of the High Court, Lifting the burden of native title: some modest proposals for improvement (Speech presented to Native Title Users Group, Adelaide July 2008); Native Title Amendment Bill 2011 (Cth); Amendments to the Native Title Amendment Bill 2012 (Cth); House of Representative Standing Committee on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs, Advisory Report for the Inquiry into the Native Title Amendment Bill 2012 (2013).
^[56] Australian Human Rights Commission, Submission to the House Standing Committee on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs on the Native Title Amendment Bill 2012 and future reform of the native title system (25 January 2013), paras 40–45.
^[57] M Gooda, Native Title Report 2012, Australian Human Rights Commission (2012), ch 3. At http://www.humanrights.gov.au/publications/native-title-report-2012 (viewed 10 July 2013).
^[58] Deloitte Access Economics, Review of the Roles and Functions of Native Title Organisations: Discussion Paper (2013), pp 14–20. At http://www.deloitteaccesseconomics.com.au/our+services/economic+analysis+and+policy/native+title/about+the+review (viewed 16 September 2013).
^[59] Taxation of Native Title and Traditional Owner Benefits and Governance Working Group, Report to Government, Commonwealth of Australia (2013). At http://www.treasury.gov.au/PublicationsAndMedia/Publications/2013/Taxation-of-Native-Title (viewed 9 September 2013).
^[60] Deloitte Access Economics has been contracted by the Australian Government to undertake this review – see Appendix 3.
^[61] I report on these reviews in Appendix 3.
^[62] A Moses and A Lowe, ‘Contents removed from racist Facebook page’, The Sydney Morning Herald, 8 August 2012. At http://www.smh.com.au/technology/technology-news/contents-removed-from-racist-facebook--page-20120808-23tr1.html (viewed 8 October 2013).
^[63] D Cooke and M Griffin, ‘Taxi drivers bar Aboriginal actors’, The Sydney Morning Herald, 2 May 2013. At http://www.smh.com.au/entertainment/theatre/taxi-drivers-bar-aboriginal-actors-20130502-2iu42.html (viewed 8 October 2013).
^[64] B Hiatt and D Emerson, ‘UWA paper sparks racial row’, The West Australian, 19 April 2013. At http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/-/newshome/16795632/uwa-paper-sparks-racial-row/ (viewed 8 October 2013).
^[65] K Brooks, ‘Racism, such as that shown towards Sydney Swans player Adam Goodes, is not a game’, The Courier-Mail, 3 June 2013. At http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/opinion/racism-such-as-that-shown-towards-sydney-swans-player-adam-goodes-is-not-a-game/story-fnihsr9v-1226655389955 (viewed 8 October 2013).
^[66] Victorian Aboriginal Child Care Agency, Submission to the National Anti-Racism Strategy (2012). At http://itstopswithme.humanrights.gov.au/it-stops-with-me/consultations (viewed 16 September 2013).
^[67] Australian Human Rights Commission, Annual Report 2012-2013 (forthcoming).
^[68] National Congress of Australia’s First Peoples, Submission to the National Anti-Racism Strategy (2012), pp 2–3. At http://nationalcongress.com.au/racism-it-stops-with-me/ (viewed 16 September 2013).
^[69] M Davis, ‘Community control and the work of the National Aboriginal Community Controlled Health Organisation: Putting meat on the bones of UNDRIP’, Indigenous Law Bulletin (2013) 8 (7), p 11.
^[70] M Davis, ‘Community control and the work of the National Aboriginal Community Controlled Health Organisation: Putting meat on the bones of UNDRIP’, Indigenous Law Bulletin (2013) 8 (7), p 13.
^[71] United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, 2007, arts 3, 4.
^[72] M Davis, ‘Community control and the work of the National Aboriginal Community Controlled Health Organisation: Putting meat on the bones of UNDRIP’, Indigenous Law Bulletin (2013) 8 (7), p 13.
^[73] Commonwealth, Parliamentary Debates, House of Representatives, 6 February 2013, p 162 (The Hon Tony Abbott MP).
^[74] M Gooda, Social Justice Report 2012, Australian Human Rights Commission (2012), p 105. At http://www.humanrights.gov.au/publications/social-justice-report-2012 (viewed 24 September 2013).
^[75] M Gooda, Social Justice Report 2012, Australian Human Rights Commission (2012), ch 2. At http://www.humanrights.gov.au/publications/social-justice-report-2012 (viewed 15 October 2013); M Gooda, Native Title Report 2012, Australian Human Rights Commission (2012), ch 2. At http://www.humanrights.gov.au/publications/native-title-report-2012 (viewed 15 October 2013).
^[76] For example, art 39 of the Declaration provides that ‘Indigenous peoples have the right to have access to financial and technical assistance from States’.
^[77] M Gooda, Native Title Report 2012, Australian Human Rights Commission (2012), pp 106–109. At http://www.humanrights.gov.au/publications/native-title-report-2012 (viewed 9 October 2013).
^[78] M Gooda, Native Title Report 2012, Australian Human Rights Commission (2012), pp 109–112. At http://www.humanrights.gov.au/publications/native-title-report-2012 (viewed 9 October 2013).
^[79] M Gooda, Social Justice Report 2012, Australian Human Rights Commission (2012), pp 164–167. At http://www.humanrights.gov.au/publications/social-justice-report-2012 (viewed 9 October 2013).
^[80] M Gooda, Social Justice Report 2012, Australian Human Rights Commission (2012), pp 176–181. At http://www.humanrights.gov.au/publications/social-justice-report-2012 (viewed 9 October 2013).
^[81] See M Gooda, Social Justice Report 2011, Australian Human Rights Commission (2011). At http://www.humanrights.gov.au/publications/social-justice-report-2011 (viewed 16 September 2013); M Gooda, Native Title Report 2011, Australian Human Rights Commission (2011). At http://www.humanrights.gov.au/publications/native-title-report-2011 (viewed 16 September 2013).
^[82] Cape York Institute, Empowered Communities (2013). At http://cyi.org.au/empowered-communities (viewed 12 September 2013).
^[83] National Congress of Australia’s First Peoples, National Justice Policy (2013), p 21. At http://nationalcongress.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/CongressJusticePolicy.pdf (viewed 3 September 2013).
^[84] For a snapshot of socioeconomic data in relation to remote Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities, see Steering Committee for the Review of Government Service Provision, Overcoming Indigenous Disadvantage: Fact Sheet Remote Areas (2011). At http://www.pc.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0012/111612/key-indicators-2011-factsheet-remote.pdf (viewed 8 October 2013).
^[85] For a snapshot of socioeconomic data in relation to urban or inner city Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities, see Steering Committee for the Review of Government Service Provision, Overcoming Indigenous Disadvantage: Fact Sheet Major Cities (2011). At http://www.pc.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0016/111616/key-indicators-2011-factsheet-cities.pdf (viewed 8 October 2013).
^[86] N Pearson, ‘The Heroes of Redfern’, The Weekend Australian, 13 April 2013, p 15. At http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opinion/columnists/heroes-of-redfern-walk-the-walk/story-e6frg786-1226619445913 (viewed 9 October 2013).
^[87] Australian Bureau of Statistics, Estimates of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians – June 2011 (2013). At http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/mf/3238.0.55.001 (viewed 12 September 2013).
^[88] M Scrimgeour and D Scrimgeour, Health Care Access for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander People Living in Urban Areas, and Related Research Issues: A Review of Literature, Cooperative Research Centre for Aboriginal Health, Discussion Paper No. 5 (2008), p 2.
^[89] See T Calma, Social Justice Report 2005, Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission (2005), ch 2. At http://www.humanrights.gov.au/publications/social-justice-reports-index (viewed 24 September 2013).
^[90] M Scrimgeour and D Scrimgeour, Health Care Access for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander People Living in Urban Areas, and Related Research Issues: A Review of Literature, Cooperative Research Centre for Aboriginal Health, Discussion Paper No. 5 (2008), p 2.
^[91] United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, 2007, preambular para 2.
^[92] See Committee on Community Services, Outsourcing Community Service Delivery: Interim Report, Legislative Assembly of New South Wales (2013), p 4. At http://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/Prod/Parlment/committee.nsf/0/c4085d8b56552970ca257bc6001e2f70/$FILE/Interim%20Report.pdf (viewed 8 October 2013).
^[93] The Forum was jointly hosted by the Aboriginal Peak Organisations Northern Territory (APO NT), Congress, Australian Council of Social Services, NT Council of Social Services and Strong Aboriginal Families, Together. See APO NT, Non-Indigenous NGO Service Delivery in Remote NT Communities. At http://apont.org.au/index.php/ngo-forum-11-february-2013.html (viewed 8 October 2013).
^[94] Forum on the role of Non-Indigenous Organisations’ engagement in Aboriginal communities in the Northern Territory (Communiqué, 11 February 2013). At http://apont.org.au/attachments/article/72/130211-Communique-NGO%20Forum%2011%20February%202013-meeting%20outcomes.pdf (viewed 8 October 2013).
^[95] Aboriginal Peak Organisations Northern Territory, Principles for a partnership-centred approach for NGOs working with Aboriginal organisations and communities in the Northern Territory (2013). At http://apont.org.au/attachments/article/72/210313%20-%20Principles%20for%20NGOs%20-%20Final.pdf (viewed 8 October 2013).
^[96] Aboriginal Peak Organisations Northern Territory, Non-Indigenous NGO Service Delivery in Remote NT Communities. At http://apont.org.au/index.php/ngo-forum-11-february-2013.html (viewed 8 October 2013).
^[97] Secretariat of National Aboriginal and Islander Child Care and AbSec, Developing Capacity through Partnerships (2013). At http://www.snaicc.org.au/_uploads/rsfil/03192.pdf (viewed 12 September 2013).
^[98] Secretariat of National Aboriginal and Islander Child Care and AbSec, Developing Capacity through Partnerships (2013), p 4. At http://www.snaicc.org.au/_uploads/rsfil/03192.pdf (viewed 12 September 2013).
^[99] M Gooda, Social Justice Report 2011, Australian Human Rights Commission (2011) p 120-164. At http://www.humanrights.gov.au/publications/social-justice-report-2011 (viewed 15 October 2013).
^[100] M Gooda, Social Justice Report 2011, Australian Human Rights Commission (2011), p 154. At http://www.humanrights.gov.au/publications/social-justice-report-2011 (viewed 15 October 2013).
^[101] M Gooda, Social Justice Report 2011, Australian Human Rights Commission (2011), p 158. At http://www.humanrights.gov.au/publications/social-justice-report-2011 (viewed 15 October 2013).
^[102] M Gooda, Social Justice Report 2011, Australian Human Rights Commission (2011), p 162. At http://www.humanrights.gov.au/publications/social-justice-report-2011 (viewed 15 October 2013).