HREOC Social Justice Report 2002: Measuring Indigenous disadvantage
Social Justice Report 2002
Chapter
4: Measuring Indigenous disadvantage
Part 1: Benchmarking
Indigenous disadvantage from a human rights perspectivea)
Indigenous disadvantage
b) The recommendations of the Council for Aboriginal
Reconciliation
c) The Social Justice Reports for 2000 and 20013.
Integrating Human Rights and Development: UN experiencea)
UNDP Human Development Report 2000
b) UNDP and UHCHR Draft Guidelines on Poverty
Alleviation4.
Research relevant to benchmarking
5. The Commonwealth Grants Commission Report on Indigenous
Funding
6. Australian Bureau of Statistics
7. Initiatives at the inter-governmental level related
to benchmarking
8. The Steering Committee framework for reporting
on Indigenous disadvantage
9. Governance and capacity building
10. Developments at State and Territory levelPart 2: Incorporating
human rights into benchmarking reconciliation1)
Indigenous participation in benchmarking
2) Progressive realisation of economic, social and
cultural rights
3) Statistics
4) Building Indigenous governance and capacity building
into benchmarking
5) Discussion of the Steering Committees draft
framework for reporting on Indigenous disadvantage
Conclusion Where to from here?
On 28-29 November
2002 I convened a workshop on the topic of benchmarking reconciliation
and human rights. The purpose of the workshop was to consider current
developments in setting benchmarks, identifying performance indicators
and developing monitoring and evaluation frameworks for addressing Indigenous
disadvantage from a human rights perspective. In particular, the workshop
considered the Draft framework for reporting on Indigenous disadvantage
currently being developed by the Steering Committee for the Review
of Commonwealth/State Service Provision under the auspices of the Council
of Australian Governments (COAG), as well as a range of recent human rights
and development initiatives at the international level.
This chapter reflects
on the issues discussed during the benchmarking reconciliation workshop.
The first part of the chapter provides an overview of issues relating
to benchmarking Indigenous disadvantage from a human rights perspective,
including an overview of international standards as well as recent research
and practice in Australia. The second part then reports on the discussion
of these issues at the benchmarking workshop.[1] How
Indigenous organisations and ATSIC grapple with the Government's processes
for monitoring practical reconciliation, such as the Steering Committee
framework, will be of great importance into the future. I therefore conclude
with some preliminary suggestions as to how to advance these issues over
the coming year.
Part 1:
Benchmarking Indigenous disadvantage from a human rights perspective
1. Background
issues
a) Indigenous
disadvantage
Aboriginals and Torres
Strait Islanders are significantly disadvantaged in contemporary Australian
society. This disadvantage represents a failure to provide in full measure
the human rights to which Australian Indigenous peoples are entitled.
Colonisation, and the consequent dispossession, disruption and dislocation
have impacted heavily on the well-being of Indigenous individuals and
communities.
The extent of Indigenous
disadvantage in Australia is reflected in statistics showing significant
health problems, high unemployment, low attainment in the formal education
sector, unsatisfactory housing and infrastructure and high levels of arrest,
incarceration and deaths in custody.[2] Indigenous despair
and distress is exemplified by serious substance abuse, domestic violence,
suicide and generally significant signs of social dysfunction. There are
concerns that, in a number of key respects, the socio-economic circumstances
of Indigenous peoples, particularly in remote areas, has not only not
improved, but that it has in some respects actually worsened.[3]
Concern at the level
of Indigenous disadvantage has been noted at an international level. In
September 2000 the UN Committee on Economic Social and Cultural Rights
(CESCR), in its Concluding Observations on Australia's third periodic
report concerning its obligations under the International Covenant on
Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR), expressed its:
deep concern that,
despite the efforts and achievements of the State party, the indigenous
populations of Australia continued to be at a comparative disadvantage
in the enjoyment of economic, social and cultural rights, particularly
in the field of employment, housing, health and education.[4]
However, there is
a dearth of detailed and reliable information. In 1999 Boyd Hunter observed
that:
Indigenous Australians
are the most disadvantaged and poorest sector of Australian society.
Given these circumstances, the lack of information on what is a significant
problem is surprising [T]he fragmentary and incomplete nature
of existing studies leaves policy makers without direction in attempting
to deal with entrenched indigenous poverty.[5]
The significance
of the extent of disadvantage suffered by Indigenous Australians was highlighted
by the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody (RCIADIC) in
1991. A central finding of the final Report of the RCIADIC was that Aboriginal
people in custody did not die at a greater rate than others. [6]
Rather, the reason for the high number of Aboriginal deaths in custody
was that the Aboriginal population was over-represented in custody: 'Too
many Aboriginal people are in custody too often'. [7]
Consequently, many of the recommendations of the Report addressed the
underlying causes of this situation. The Report found that:
The single significant
contributing factor to incarceration is the disadvantaged and unequal
position of Aboriginal people in Australian society in every way, whether
socially, economically or culturally.[8]
The emphasis on the
social, economic and cultural disadvantage underlying incarceration and
deaths in custody was a defining characteristic of the Report. It linked
the symptoms of Indigenous distress, such as the high rate of encounters
with the criminal justice system, with the underlying cause of
systemic disadvantage suffered by Indigenous Australians. The RCIADIC
identified as fundamental the disempowerment and marginalisation of Indigenous
peoples. Accordingly, it identified the necessity that:
principles of self-determination
should be applied to the design and implementation of all policies and
programs affecting Aboriginal people, that there should be maximum devolution
of power to Aboriginal communities and organisations to determine their
own priorities for funding allocations, and that such organisations
should, as a matter of preference be the vehicles through which programs
are delivered.[9]
While the linkages
between Indigenous distress, socio-economic disadvantage, and the need
for self-determination, were clearly and authoritatively established in
the 1991 RCIADIC Report, progress since then in dealing with these issues
has been unsatisfactory. As ATSIC pointed out in its submission to ICESCR
in 2000: 'attempts to remedy the over-all disadvantage of Indigenous Australians
have been partial, inadequate and without clear objectives and targets'.[10]
In the context of
the movement towards reconciliation, it has become increasingly evident
that reconciliation entails more than acknowledgement of prior occupation
and ownership, expressions of apology or regret, and the granting of (limited)
native title and land rights, as important as these are. While ever the
social, cultural and economic circumstances of Indigenous Australians
remain parlous and Indigenous peoples vulnerable, social justice is lacking
and there is no firm basis for true equality, respect and co-existence.
The RCIADIC identified the need for a process of reconciliation, and in
doing so confirmed that the success of the reconciliation process would
be integrally linked with addressing Indigenous disadvantage.
b) The
recommendations of the Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation
On 7 December 2000,
the Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation (CAR) presented to the Parliament
its final report, Australia's Challenge. [11]
The Report made six recommendations focusing on processes and accountability
in the context of reconciliation. The first of these recommended that:
The Council of
Australian Governments to agree to implement and monitor a national
framework for all governments and ATSIC to work to overcome indigenous
disadvantage through setting benchmarks that are measurable, have timelines,
are agreed with Indigenous peoples and are publicly reported.
This recommendation
reflected CAR reconciliation documents released earlier in the year, namely
the Australian Declaration Toward Reconciliation and the Roadmap
for Reconciliation. The Declaration included the pledge to
stop injustice and overcome disadvantage and the Roadmap contained
four national strategies recommending ways to transform the commitment
to reconciliation into actions. In the context of benchmarking reconciliation,
of significance is the National Strategy to Overcome Disadvantage,
focusing on education, employment, health, housing, law and justice. Guidelines
for implementing this Strategy were published as Overcoming Disadvantage
- Ways to implement the National Strategy to Overcome Disadvantage, one
of four National Strategies in the Roadmap for Reconciliation.
Overcoming Disadvantage
emphasised, as essential to holding governments accountable, the need
for reliable information about the level of need, the money spent and
the services delivered. It identified benchmarking as a means to do this.
It stressed that accountability and benchmarking required not just accurate
data, but also a measure of independence and honesty in data collection
and analysis. It further urged that territory, state and federal Governments,
and ATSIC, with respect to both mainstream and Indigenous specific programs,
set national state, territory and regional outcomes and output benchmarks,
where they do not currently exist, that are measurable, include time-lines
and are agreed in partnership with Indigenous peoples and communities.
Governments should publicly and annually present an outputs and outcomes
report to their respective parliaments, on a whole-of-government basis,
against these agreed outcomes.
The report identified
the leadership role of the Council of Australian Governments (COAG), and
the need for the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) to continue to
improve Indigenous data through the census and other surveys, and the
need for data agencies such as the ABS, the Australian Institute of Health
and Welfare, the Australian Institute of Criminology and the Steering
Committee of the Review of Commonwealth/State Service Provision to extend
their Indigenous data collections and reporting and provide more Indigenous/non-Indigenous
comparative statistics and breakdowns at the regional and sub-regional
levels.
The parameters of
the project of benchmarking reconciliation are clearly set out in these
CAR documents. CAR has come to the end of its life, and the focus of activity
has tended to shift to agencies involved in the practical issues of implementing
benchmarking programs to address Indigenous disadvantage. While the successor
to CAR, Reconciliation Australia, will retain an active interest, other
agencies and organisations have the task of following the roadmap set
out by the CAR. The roles will range from advocacy and monitoring through
to policy and planning and the technical issues of collecting and interpreting
data. Indigenous organisations and communities will need to be effective
partners in the process if it is to work and have meaning.
The Government's
response to the Council's documents, and specifically recommendation 1,
are discussed in detail in chapters 2 and 3 of the report. The initiatives
undertaken by the Council of Australian Governments in accordance with
the recommendations are discussed further below.
c) The
Social Justice Reports for 2000 and 2001
The Social Justice
Report 2000 provided a rights-based approach to progressing reconciliation.
Chapter 4 of the Report, 'Achieving meaningful reconciliation', provided
a detailed analysis of the processes and mechanisms that enable reconciliation
to be implemented within a human rights framework. In particular, five
integrated requirements were identified that need to be met to integrate
a human rights approach into redressing Indigenous disadvantage and to
provide sufficient government accountability. These five requirements
build on the CAR work, and provide a framework for addressing Indigenous
disadvantage. They are as follows.
|
Five
|
Based on these five
requirements, the Report contained fourteen detailed recommendations relating
to:
- national commitments
to overcome Indigenous disadvantage;
- improved data
collection;
- monitoring and
evaluation mechanisms;
- negotiating with
Indigenous peoples; and
- protecting human
rights.[13]
This comprehensive
set of recommendations complement those of CAR and specify the central
position of human rights for meaningful reconciliation. Together with
the CAR recommendations they provide a series of actions as a checklist
for determining progress in respect of advancing reconciliation. In respect
of the requirement concerning negotiating with Indigenous peoples, this
necessity has been identified for some time. In particular, this matter
was spelt out in the social justice package proposals put to the Government
in 1995 by ATSIC, CAR and the Social Justice Commissioner.[14]
The Social Justice
Report 2001 noted, notwithstanding COAG agreeing to a communiqué
on reconciliation in 2000 [15] which adopted the first
recommendation of CAR ( a national framework for overcoming Indigenous
disadvantage through setting benchmarks), the slow progress and lack of
specificity in responding to the Reconciliation documents. In the Government's
response to the Social Justice Report of the previous year, there had
been no mention of the fourteen recommendations in the Report and no response
to any of them. Noting that the commitments the 1992 COAG National
Commitment to improved outcomes in the delivery of programs and services
for Aboriginal peoples and Torres Strait Islanders and the 1997 National
Ministerial Summit on Deaths in Custody for improved coordination of funding
and service delivery and for negotiated national benchmarks and targets
had been largely not implemented, the 2001 Report stated that: 'Government
programs and inter-governmental coordination continue to lack sufficient
accountability and transparency'.[16]
The Report noted
some positive developments at state government level, in particular the
conclusion of Justice Agreements. However, due to concerns about the lack
of response to the CAR documents, as well as the inadequate response to
the Social Justice Report 2000, the Social Justice Commissioner
made a further recommendation, calling for a Senate inquiry into national
progress towards reconciliation.[17]
On 27 August 2002,
the Senate referred to its Legal and Constitutional References Committee
an Inquiry into the Progress Towards National Reconciliation. The
Social Justice Commissioner, in welcoming the Inquiry, noted that it directly
responded to Recommendation 11 of the 2001 Social Justice Report. The
Terms of Reference require the Committee to inquire into:
- progress towards
national reconciliation, including an examination of the adequacy and
effectiveness of the Commonwealth Government's response to the reconciliation
documents cited in the Social Justice Commissioner's 2001 recommendation;
and - the adequacy
and effectiveness of any targets, benchmarks, monitoring and evaluation
mechanisms that have been put in place consistent with the reconciliation
documents.[18]
2. The
Human Rights Context
The Social Justice
Report 2000 sets out four basic human rights principles as the necessary
basis the realisation of reconciliation. They are:
- No discrimination,
that is, a guarantee of equal treatment and protection for all. Equal
protection includes recognition of distinct cultural characteristics
of particular racial groups (substantive equality), and can require
temporary special measures of assistance to overcome inequalities; - Progressive
realisation, that is the commitment of sufficient resources through
well targeted programs to ensure adequate progress in the realisation
of rights over time; - Effective
participation, that is ensuring that individuals and communities
are adequately involved in decisions that affect their well being, including
the design and delivery of programs; - Effective
remedies, that is the provision of mechanisms for redress when human
rights are violated.
These four principles
are more than a statement of objectives or goals to be met as and when
governments feel it is appropriate or practical to do so. Rather, they
are a distillation of the human rights principles and norms which make
up the international law of human rights. They are contained in various
international instruments to which Australia is party and which consequently
are binding on Australia. And while the particular application of these
norms may take account of local circumstances and the constraints that
may exist, there is no discretion as to whether these norms are to be
applied to the fullest extent possible. This is an obligation of international
law, and a nation fails to meet these obligations at the peril of its
international reputation and standing. The process of reconciliation should
be seen as part of the realisation of human rights. Thus, as the scope,
content and meaning of these rights have to a large degree been elaborated
in international forums, it is important to see reconciliation as having
both domestic application and an international dimension.
Economic, social
and cultural rights are as much a part of international human rights law
as are civil and political rights, although they have only achieved full
recognition in more recent times. They were originally asserted in the
foundational instrument of human rights law, the 1948 Universal Declaration
of Human Rights, which stated that freedom from fear and want can only
be achieved if conditions are created where everyone may enjoy their economic,
social and cultural rights, as well as their civil and political rights.
Provisions covering aspects of economic, social and cultural rights are
contained in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
1976 (ICCPR), including in particular Article 27 relating to minority
rights, and the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms
of Racial Discrimination 1969 (ICERD), in particular Article 2(2) requiring
states, when circumstances so warrant, to take special and concrete measures
in the social, economic and cultural fields to ensure adequate development
and protection of certain racial groups or individuals belonging to them.
As well, the jurisprudence of the treaty body committees established to
monitor the implementation of these instruments has added to the understanding
of the meaning and scope of the relevant provisions.
The central instrument,
however, in respect of matters affecting the health and well-being of
Indigenous peoples and communities is the International Covenant on Economic,
Social and Cultural Rights 1976 (ICESCR). The work of this Covenant's
treaty body, the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (CESCR),
particularly through the interpretation of its provisions by way of General
Comments, provides authoritative guidance to an appreciation of what is
involved in the obligation to seek the progressive realisation of these
rights.
Australia has ratified
ICESCR and is consequently bound to implement its provisions as they apply
to Australia. Article 2 (1) requires a State party to the Convention to
undertake:
to take steps to
the maximum of its available resources, with a view to achieving progressively
the full realisation of the rights recognised in the present Covenant
by all appropriate means... (emphasis added)
This provision is
further elaborated by CESCR's General Comment 3.[19]
It is controlling in respect of all the other provisions of the Covenant.
[20] While the obligation 'to take steps' means that
the full realisation of relevant rights may be achieved progressively,
the taking of such steps cannot be delayed, and further, those steps should
be deliberate, concrete and targeted as clearly as possible towards meeting
the obligations recognised in the Covenant. [21]
Significantly, while
the periodic reports of States to the Committee should provide not only
the measures that have been taken, but also the basis on which the State
considers those steps to have been the most 'appropriate', nevertheless
'the ultimate determination as to whether all appropriate measures have
been taken remains one for the Committee to make'.[22]
That is to say, a
State cannot purport to sit in judgment on its own performance. Additionally,
although the Covenant foresees that rights will be realised over time,
or in other words progressively, there is nevertheless an obligation to
move as expeditiously and effectively as possible. [23]
General Comment 3 also notes that a minimum core obligation is incumbent
upon every State to ensure the satisfaction of, at the very least, minimum
essential levels of each of the rights. [24] This obligation
is immediate in its application.
A number of the provisions
of this Covenant are directly relevant to the disadvantage suffered by
the Indigenous peoples of Australia. These include Article 11, the right
of everyone to an adequate standard of living for themselves and their
family. This right is instructive in that it demonstrates both the obligatory
nature of the rights contained in the Covenant and the cultural flexibility
and relativity that is encapsulated in the ICESCR approach. An implication
of the right to an adequate standard of living for Australian Indigenous
peoples can be seen in respect of housing and infrastructure. In General
Comment 4, the Committee has noted that: [25]
The human right
to adequate housing, which is thus derived from the right to an adequate
standard of living, is of central importance for the enjoyment of all
economic, social and cultural rights. [26]
Noting that in particular,
the enjoyment of this right must not be subject to any form of discrimination,
the Committee nevertheless advised that the right to housing should not
be interpreted in a narrow or restrictive sense which equates it with,
for example, the shelter provided merely by having a roof over one's head
or views shelter exclusively as a commodity. Rather it should be seen
as the right to live somewhere in security, peace and dignity. The Committee
states that:
Adequate shelter
means adequate privacy, adequate space, adequate security, adequate
lighting and ventilation, adequate basic infrastructure and adequate
location with regard to work and basic facilities - all at a reasonable
cost.[27]
The relevance of
this approach to the range of circumstances of Indigenous peoples in Australia,
including encompassing cultural expectations of housing that may differ
from the mainstream, is evident. In fact, the Committee specifically addresses
what it terms 'Cultural adequacy'.
The way housing
is constructed, the building materials used and the policies supporting
these must appropriately enable the expression of cultural identity
and diversity of housing. Activity geared towards development or modernisation
in the housing sphere should ensure that the cultural dimensions of
housing are not sacrificed, and that, inter alia, modern technological
facilities, as appropriate are also ensured. [28]
This discussion is
clearly relevant to the provision of adequate and appropriate housing
for Indigenous peoples in Australia, a major area of disadvantage of Indigenous
Australians. For example, the CESCR formulation can provide a framework
for the provision of housing on outstations which both meets equality
objectives and recognises cultural diversity. Importantly, it shows that
equality goals should not be used to obstruct people's aspirations for
outcomes which are not identical to those of the mainstream society.[29]
However, it should
also be noted that there are real challenges here for the ways targets
are constructed and indicators developed to respond to a diversity of
cultural situations and aspirations. This is discussed below.
Article 12 provides
for the right of everyone to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standards
of physical and mental health. The Committee has elaborated the meaning,
scope and implication of this Article in a recent detailed General Comment
(no. 14).[30] Stating that '[H]ealth is a fundamental
human right indispensable for the exercise of other human rights', the
Committee noted that the right to health has been confirmed in a number
of international instruments.[31] The Committee interprets
the right to health, as contained in the Covenant, as:
an inclusive right
extending not only to timely and appropriate health care but also to
the underlying determinants of health, such as access to safe and potable
water and adequate sanitation, an adequate supply of safe food, nutrition
and housing, healthy occupational and environmental conditions, and
access to health-related education and information, including on sexual
and reproductive health. A further important aspect is the participation
of the population in all health-related decision-making at the community,
national and international levels.[32]
Of particular note
is the inclusion of a paragraph specifically relating this right to Indigenous
peoples. [33] The paragraph emphasises the need for
health services to be culturally appropriate and for full and effective
participation by Indigenous peoples. The Committee notes that in Indigenous
communities the health of the individual is often linked to the health
of the society as a whole and has a collective dimension. As with other
rights protected by the Covenant (including the right to education), there
is an emphasis on the need to develop health strategies that should identify
appropriate right to health indicators and benchmarks. The indicators
should be designed to monitor the State's obligations under Article 12.
Having identified appropriate right to health indicators, states should
set appropriate benchmarks to each indicator, for use in monitoring and
reporting.
In summary, ICESCR
provides a normative human rights framework for addressing Indigenous
disadvantage. While the Covenant provides for a realistic and flexible
approach, it does not compromise on the obligation for States to achieve
the progressive realisation of rights as effectively and expeditiously
as possible. States are required to take steps that are deliberate, concrete
and targeted. An integral part of the obligations assumed by States in
ratifying the Covenant is to develop strategies, identify indicators and
determine benchmarks.
This approach is
now an integral feature of the international human rights regime, applying
equally to economic, social and cultural rights as to other rights. But,
going beyond the prescriptive framework of the Covenant and the other
human rights treaties, the treaty bodies charged with monitoring their
implementation have undertaken the task in a manner designed to cooperate
with and assist States in achieving human rights. International instruments
such as ICESCR now represent a considerable body of experience and expertise,
built up over the last 30 years or so.
In approaching these
issues in Australia, it is unhelpful to dispute or ignore this experience.
The development of policies to address Indigenous disadvantage is best
done in full cognizance of Australia's international human rights obligations,
and within the framework for the realisation of those rights that has
been developed within the UN. The integration of human rights principles
into the design and delivery of programs and technical assistance for
poverty eradication is the next generation of the development of human
rights, and is presently under active development in the UN system.
3. Integrating
Human Rights and Development: UN experience
Over the last five
years a major goal of the UN has been to integrate human rights principles
into the whole of the Organisation's work, including the overarching development
goal of poverty eradication. These developments are reflected in:
- United Nations
Development Program (UNDP) Human Development Report 2000; [34]
and - Office of UN
High Commission on Human Rights (OHCHR)/UNDP Draft Guidelines on
Poverty Alleviation.[35]
Representing current
developments at the international level, these documents provide useful
and relevant information and merit attention in the Australian context.
The following information is intended to note some major features, but
does not purport to provide a full summary of the documents given their
detailed nature.
a) UNDP
Human Development Report 2000
The Human Development
Report 2000 had as its theme 'Human Rights and Human Development'. This
landmark publication for the UN system emphasised the mutually reinforcing
relationship between human rights and human development, and highlighted
the need for innovative thinking, strategic planning and cultivating new
partnerships in integrating human rights considerations into program formulation
and implementation.
Chapter 5 of the
Report, Using indicators for human rights accountability, examines
the importance statistical indicators as powerful tools in the struggle
for human rights. The Report argues that developing and using indicators
has become a cutting-edge area of advocacy. In this context, the Report
notes the importance of developing indicators for:
- Making better
policies and monitoring progress; - Identifying unintended
impacts of laws, policies and practices; - Identifying which
actors are having an impact on the realisation of rights; - Revealing whether
the obligations of these actors are being met; - Giving early warning
of potential violations, prompting preventative action; - Enhancing social
consensus on difficult trade-offs to be made in the face of resource
constraints; and - Exposing issues
that have been neglected or silenced.
While statistics
alone cannot measure the full dimension of rights, they can 'open the
questions behind the generalities and help reveal the broader social challenges'.
[36] They can allow human rights to be more concretely
relied upon in designing and evaluating policy. UNDP has provided a framework
for what the statistics should measure so that they adequately assess
progress in the realisation of human rights. UNDP suggests that statistics
must address the following three perspectives, simultaneously:
- An average
perspective: What is the overall progress in the country, and how
has it changed over time? - A deprivation
perspective: Who are the most deprived groups in society, disaggregated
by income; gender; region; rural or remote location; ethnic group; or
education level. How have the most deprived groups progressed over time? - An inequality
perspective: Measuring the disparity between various groups in society,
and whether these disparities have widened or narrowed over time.[37]
Benchmarking is a
useful tool for measuring whether adequate progress is being made in realising
rights. Targets may not all be achievable immediately - they may be subject
to progressive realisation. States should identify appropriate indicators,
in relation to which they should set ambitious but achievable benchmarks
(i.e. intermediate targets) corresponding to each ultimate target, so
that the rate of progress can be monitored and, if progress is slow, corrective
action taken. Thus, indicators measure progress towards both intermediate
and ultimate targets. Setting benchmarks enables government and other
parties to reach agreement about what rate of progress would be adequate.
The stronger is the basis of national dialogue, the more national commitment
there will be to the benchmark. The need for debate and widely available
public information is clear. If benchmarks are to be a tool of accountability,
not just the rhetoric of empty promises, they must be, according to UNDP:
- Specific, time
bound and verifiable; - Set with the participation
of the people whose rights are affected, to agree on what is an adequate
rate of progress and to prevent the target from being set too low; - Reassessed independently
at their target date, with accountability for performance.[38]
The UNDP Report provides
some important qualifications on the use of statistical indicators, including
benchmarks. Statistics come with strings attached. They provide great
power for clarity, but also for distortion. When based on careful research
and method, indicators help establish strong evidence, open dialogue and
increase accountability. As the following box indicates, care needs to
be taken: [39]
|
Statistical Statistical
|
The UNDP cautions
that the powerful impact of statistics creates four caveats in their use:
- Overuse:
Statistics alone cannot capture the full picture of rights and should
not be the only focus of assessment. All statistical analysis needs
to be embedded in an interpretation drawing on broader political, social
and contextual analysis. - Underuse: Data
are rarely voluntarily collected on issues that are incriminating, embarrassing
or simply ignored. Even when data are collected, they may not be made
public for many years. - Misuse:
Data collection is often biased towards institutions and formalised
reporting, towards events that occur, not events prevented or suppressed.
But lack of data does not always mean fewer occurrences. - Political
abuse:
Indicators can be manipulated for political purposes to discredit certain
countries or actors.
b)
UNDP and UHCHR Draft Guidelines on Poverty Alleviation
The most comprehensive
documentation on developing a human rights approach to poverty alleviation
to date are the draft guidelines developed jointly by the Office of the
High Commissioner for Human Rights and UNDP. In 2001 the UN Committee
on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights requested the High Commissioner
'to develop substantive guidelines for the integration of human rights
in national poverty reduction strategies'.[40] The draft
guidelines are the outcome of that request. The objective of the guidelines
is to provide practitioners involved in the design and implementation
of poverty reduction strategies with operational guidelines for the adoption
of a human rights based approach. The purpose is to focus on providing
guidelines for the use of States that are integrating human rights into
their poverty reduction strategies. In this respect they can be of relevance
to the situation in Australia.
The guidelines state
that policies and institutions for poverty reduction should be based explicitly
on the norms and values set out in the international law of human rights,
and that the human rights approach to poverty reduction is essentially
about empowerment. The most fundamental way in which empowerment occurs
is through the introduction of the concept of rights itself. Poverty reduction
then becomes more than charity, more than a moral obligation - it becomes
a legal obligation.
The guidelines note
that:
by introducing
the dimension of an international legal obligation, the human
rights perspective adds legitimacy to the demand for making poverty
reduction the primary goal of policy making.[41]
The guidelines in
effect synthesise, develop and sytematise the various approaches that
have grown up in different agencies and in various reports and documents.
In this context, the summary provided by the guidelines of the advantages
of the human rights approach provides a useful encapsulation of the rationale
of rights-based approaches to programs to reduce disadvantage, including
Indigenous disadvantage. The guidelines state that, in sum, the human
rights approach has the potential to advance the goals of poverty alleviation
in a variety of ways:
a) By urging speedy
adoption of a poverty reduction strategy, underpinned by human rights
as a matter of legal obligation;b) By broadening
the scope of poverty reduction strategies so as to address the structures
of discrimination that generate and sustain poverty;c) By urging the
expansion of civil and political rights, which can play a crucial instrumental
role in advancing the cause of poverty reduction;d) By confirming
that economic, social and cultural rights are binding international
human rights, not just programmatic aspirations;e) By adding legitimacy
to the demand for ensuring meaningful participation of the poor in decision-making
processes;f) By cautioning
against retrogression and non-fulfilment of minimum core obligations
in the name of making trade-offs; andg) By creating
and strengthening the institutions through which policy-makers can be
held accountable for their actions.[42]
The guidelines provide
a comprehensive document. They are divided into three sections. Section
I sets out basic principles, Section II identifies, for each of the rights
relevant to poverty reduction (health, housing, education etc), the major
elements of a strategy for realising that right. Section III explains
how the human rights approach can guide the monitoring and accountability
aspects of poverty reduction strategies. Because of its special significance,
accountability is singled out for discussion in a separate section.
Particular guidelines
that spell out in detail issues of accountability and, while not always
completely relevant to the Australian situation, do provide a good deal
of potentially useful information, include:
- Guideline 4:
Progressive Realisation of Human Rights: Indicators and Benchmarks;
- Guideline 16:
Principles of Monitoring and Accountability; and
- Guideline
17: Monitoring and Accountability of States.
In summary, relevant
international norms, the views of the treaty monitoring committees, and
developments in UN bodies in integrating human rights and poverty alleviation,
are crucial elements in addressing Indigenous disadvantage in Australia.[43]
4. Research
relevant to benchmarking
In Australia, there
have been significant developments in respect of developing indicators
and benchmarks. This section examines some relevant research undertaken
by the Centre for Aboriginal Economic Policy Research (CAEPR).
In 1998 CAEPR, in
conjunction with CAR, in discussing a benchmarking framework for service
delivery to Aboriginal Australians, noted that the historical reasons
for Indigenous disadvantage could be summarised under the following headings:
[44]
- Dispossession:
Prior to British occupation, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples
'developed a mosaic of communities and groups with rich and enduring
cultures centred on an intimate relationship with the land and sea
Dispossession and dispersal have destroyed much of Aboriginal and Torres
Strait Islander societies [and] many Indigenous communities and
individuals have little or no stake in the economic life of the nation
other than what Governments may provide'.[45] - Exclusion
from mainstream services:
Up until the late 1960's, many Indigenous Australians were excluded
from mainstream services, creating 'a significant legacy of inequality
in areas such as education, health, housing and infrastructure'.[46] - Recent inclusion:
In combination with exclusion from services such as education, access
to welfare has 'unintentionally, and paradoxically, created poverty
traps from which it is hard to escape'.[47] - Past and inter-generational
poverty:
Low income has prevented the accumulation of capital and investment,
leading to inter-generational poverty. - Location in
rural and remote areas: A higher proportion of the Indigenous population
lives in rural and remote areas where there are few economic opportunities
and service delivery is disproport-ionately expensive. - Demography:
The large
and multi-generational nature of Indigenous households creates dependency
ratios and a higher economic burden than in non-Indigenous families.
Similarly, the Indigenous population's structure is more akin to that
of a developing nation, with population growth outstripping that of
the general Australian population, and with a young age structure.
Each of these factors
has implications in developing policy and programs to address Indigenous
disadvantage, and in identifying indicators, setting targets and providing
benchmarks. Consequently, as the CAR/CAEPR paper noted, there are:
problems of seeking
statistical equity without recognising the deep-rooted structural causes
of the low socio-economic status of Indigenous Australians and without
basing targets on accurate demographic data applying the principle
of equality and setting statistical targets must be both geographically
and culturally informed Governments need to be realistic about
what can be achieved, in light of the highly intractable nature of the
problem, and careful in their use of statistics There is a very
real danger that perceptions of continued policy and program failure
can do considerable harm to the argument for proactive government programs
to address Indigenous needs.[48]
A further difficulty,
illustrated by CAEPR research, is that of interpreting statistics relating
to program outcomes while recognising, and allowing for, the effect on
outcomes of Indigenous choice, where that choice may not be consistent
with the stated equality objectives of a policy or program. The policy
of self-determination is based on the possibility of choice, including
in respect of lifestyles.
Tim Rowse has argued
that the duality of policy aims, 'equality' and 'choice', has made program
indicators difficult to interpret. [49] That is to say,
Indigenous peoples may make certain choices that lead to lower than possible
outcomes in terms of, for example, employment and resultant income levels.
Consequently, it may be difficult to interpret results in terms of the
efficacy of programs in addressing the disadvantage caused by the effects
of historical disadvantage, structural constraints, and ongoing discrimination.
The possible conflict between self-determining choices and equity of outcomes,
as well as creating difficulties in interpreting data, clearly has implications
for policy formulation processes and establishing targets.
CAEPR evaluations
of the Hawke Government's Aboriginal Employment Development Policy (AEDP),
demonstrate some of these problems. For example, John Taylor, in a study
of geographic location and Aboriginal economic status as reflected in
the situation of outstations, concluded that, on the whole, remote location
is reflected in lower economic status. [50] He noted
a very high rate of 'unemployment' on outstations and also that outstation
residents display far less tendency to have school-based skills. The dilemma
in interpreting these outcomes is that outstations, rather than simply
reflecting poorer outcomes, could instead be seen as a locational trade-off
aimed at balancing a range of cultural, economic, social and political
considerations. In respect of education, the question was whether policy
was failing (in that outstation residents lacked schooling), or was succeeding
in that people were enabled by land tenure and welfare polices to choose
to live in outstations, even though at times these were far from jobs
and schools.
A related dilemma
was considered by Jon Altman and Diane Smith in respect of high unemployment
in remote localities - in this instance they noted that the statistical
exclusion from the ranks of the employed of people participating in subsistence
activities, and the failure to count their production as income-in-kind,
skewed employment and income results. [51] They further
noted that, paradoxically, if welfare income at outstations was classified
as CDEP wages, then residents would immediately be reclassified as employed.
They noted a further paradox that if such a reclassification occurred,
those now understood to be 'employed' would be limited to low incomes
- the AEDP goal of non-Indigenous and Indigenous income equality would
be forfeited. They concluded that:
Such a reclassification
could mean that the goal of income equality may not be appropriate in
the outstation context if people make a conscious choice to reside in
locations that are remote from mainstream economic opportunities. [52]
The issue of choice
poses problems of appropriateness and interpretation. It may be that quantitative
measures need to be supplemented by qualitative measures. This is in fact
proposed, in the context of identifying the poor, in the OHCHR/UNDP Draft
Guidelines on Poverty Alleviation (see above). In Guideline 1, it is noted
that:
Innovative mechanisms
will have to be designed - probably using a combination of quantitative
and qualitative methods - to elicit the necessary information in a cost-effective
way.
The Social Justice
Report 2000 also noted that 'the targets should be culturally appropriate'.[53]
The Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation has made the point that there
is concern that some of the targets and desired outcomes may be:
Based on western
assumptions about disadvantage and that they have limited cultural relevance
to Indigenous peoples. Where this is the case, it may be unrealistic
to expect full statistical equality to be achieved with the wider community,
even in the long term. However, it would be wrong to describe as disadvantage
those specific statistical differences that arise directly from cultural
obligations and self-determination.[54]
The CAEPR body of
research is large, and a great deal of it is relevant to the issue of
benchmarking reconciliation. It is not possible to summarise this body
of research here. [55] Instead, some of the specific
issues concerning monitoring and evaluation that have emerged in the course
of CAEPR research are noted. These are:
- Disaggregation:
It has become clear in a number of contexts that national figures do
not reveal sufficient information and the averages or rates calculated
on a national basis may be misleading. Taylor has noted that the success
or failure of policy should be measured 'in a manner that reflects regional
priorities, the variability of participation in formal and informal
economies, and the restricted options in many remote locations'. [56]
Policy evaluations demand attention to the particularities of regions
and to evaluate employment outcomes the markets need to be differentiated.[57]Also noting the
need for disaggregation in some circumstances, the OHCHR/UNDP Draft
Guidelines on Poverty Alleviation note the need to specify groups
by geographic location, gender, age etc 'so that the problem of poverty
can be addressed at as disaggregated a level as possible'. [58] - Rates and size
of the base population: CAEPR researchers have pointed out that
any consideration of the rates of employment, unemployment and labour
force participation should take into account the size of the base population.
Taylor and Altman projected the rapid growth of the working age Indigenous
population.[59] Against this expansion in the base,
the task of achieving improvements in rates of employment, or even holding
the line, could be seen to be great. Taylor and Hunter observed that
it would be difficult in these circumstances to prevent Indigenous labour
force status from slipping. Indeed, they noted that:to move beyond
this, and attempt to close the gap between Indigenous and other
Australians, will require an absolute and relative expansion in
Indigenous employment that is without precedent.[60] - Definition
of poverty: Hunter has pointed out that the conceptual problems
of measuring indigenous poverty include the role of non-market work
(for example subsistence hunting and gathering), family size and composition,
relative prices and the geographic distribution of the population. As
well as income, people need access to adequate health care, housing
and justice. He argues that it is inappropriate to focus solely on income
as the measure of poverty, and that Indigenous poverty is in fact multi-faceted.
[61]Hunter, Kennedy
and Biddle note that an important issue is for researchers to ensure
that the assumptions made in measuring poverty are transparent and
can be evaluated by commentators contributing directly to the policy
debate. [62] Their paper attempts to illustrate
how the composition of the poor changes with small variations in seemingly
innocuous assumptions. The only point of agreement in the poverty
literature is that people who live in poverty must live in a state
of deprivation, a state in which their standard of living falls below
some minimum acceptable level. However, the way in which poverty has
been defined and measured provokes a multitude of questions, for example,
which is the best group among whom to assume income is shared-the
nuclear family, the extended family or the household? - Relationship
between variables: education, employment and income: Anne Daly found
that even when Aborigines were equal in education to non-Aborigines
they were less likely to have a job. [63] Gray, Hunter
and Schwab hypothesized that it is not absolute improvement in Indigenous
educational attainment that matters, but relative improvement as against
other Australians.[64]Schwab questioned
whether 'equity' in participation and outcome (with non-Indigenous
Australians) should be the aim of policy. Statistical equality was
likely to remain elusive, and could obscure important differences
of need.[65] - Problems of
defining and enumerating the Indigenous population: Without a defined
Indigenous population it is not possible to evaluate the impact, over
time, of government programs to address Indigenous disadvantage. Difficulties
with Census data have been considered by CAEPR researchers including
Gray,[66] and Taylor and Bell. [67]
Based on observations in remote and fringe communities, Martin, Morphy
and Taylor have made recommendations for changes in the special enumeration
procedures for Indigenous Australians which are part of Census procedures.[68]
5. The
Commonwealth Grants Commission Report on Indigenous Funding
In 1999 the Commonwealth
Grants Commission (CGC) was set the task of developing methods of calculating
the relative needs of Indigenous Australians in different regions for
health, housing, infrastructure, education, training and employment services,
to calculate indexes of need and compare the results with the actual distribution
of expenditure on those functions. Thus the Terms of Reference were restricted
to differences of need between groups of Indigenous people. The Report
of the Inquiry was presented to the Government in March 2001.[69]
However, many submissions to the Inquiry argued that addressing the large
gap between Indigenous and non-Indigenous people was more important than
redistributing existing funding.
The Report takes
a wide view of the issues involved in addressing Indigenous disadvantage,
and contains considerable information and analysis concerning Indigenous
funding issues. As the Social Justice Report 2000 noted:
Despite the limitations
imposed by the scope of the inquiry, the Commission's inquiry has been
an important one, vividly demonstrating the value of an independent
evaluative mechanism. [70]
The Report noted
that, given the entrenched levels of disadvantage experienced by Indigenous
peoples in all functional areas addressed by the Inquiry, it would have
been expected that Indigenous use of mainstream services would be at levels
greater than those of non-Indigenous Australians. However, this was found
not to be the case. Indigenous Australians in all regions access mainstream
services at very much lower rates than non-Indigenous people. The inequities
resulting from the low level of access to mainstream programs are compounded
by the high levels of disadvantage experienced by Indigenous peoples.
This also meant that specific programs for Indigenous peoples were carrying
an additional burden of compensating for the lack of access to mainstream
programs.
The Report came to
a number of conclusions and identified a range of suggestions to improve
performance, including changes to existing Commonwealth-state arrangements
by introducing and/or reinforcing additional conditions on Special Purpose
Payments (SPPs) (see below), moving to insert regional needs-based allocation
requirements into Indigenous specific SPPs; and seeking conditions on
general SPPs to direct expenditure to aspects of services that are important
to Indigenous peoples.
The Report identified
a number of important principles and key areas for action that should
guide efforts to promote a better alignment of funding with needs. These
include: [71]
(i) the full and
effective participation of Indigenous people in decisions affecting
funding distribution and service delivery;(ii) a focus on
outcomes;(iii) ensuring
a long term perspective to the design and implementation of programs
and services, thus providing a secure context for setting goals;(iv) ensuring
genuine collaborative processes with the involvement of government and
non-government funders and service deliverers, to maximise opportunities
for pooling of funds, as well as multi-jurisdictional and cross-functional
approaches to service delivery;(v) recognition
of the critical importance of effective access to mainstream programs
and services, and clear actions to identify and address barriers to
access;(vi) improving
the collection and availability of data to support informed decision-making,
monitoring of achievements and program evaluation; and(vii) recognising
the importance of capacity building within Indigenous communities.
Particularly relevant
to the issue of benchmarking is the identification of the need to improve
performance in respect of data matters ((vi) above). It was evident to
the CGC that much of the required data for analysing service delivery
was non existent, or partial, or unreliable, or not comparable either
between regions or over time. As the Report says, access to comparable
and reliable data is critical if objective measures of Indigenous need
are to be better incorporated in decisions on the allocation of funds.
The Report notes various data problems, including:
- concerns with
Census data;[72]
- the difficulty
of obtaining administrative data;[73]
- where it does
exist, the lack of comparability;
- at times confidentiality
constraints; and
- the fact that
there are practically no data on what mainstream funds are spent by
region, or by any specific group of people.
Noting that 'a much
greater effort will need to be made by the Commonwealth, the States and
other service providers to improve their comparability, reliability and
availability', the Report recommended that priority must be given to collecting
comparable regional data for many variables. The Report observed that
to achieve good consistent data, the Commonwealth, state and other service
providers needed to, as a matter of urgency:
- identify minimum
data sets and define each data item using uniform methods so that the
needs of Indigenous people in each functional area can be reliably measured; - prepare measurable
objectives so that defined performance outcomes can be measured and
evaluated at a national, state and regional level; - ensure data collection
is effective, yet sensitive to the limited resources available in service
delivery organisations to devote to data collection; - negotiate agreements
with community based service providers on the need to collect data,
what data should be collected, who can use the data, the conditions
on which the data will be provided to others and what they can use it
for; and - encourage all
service providers to give a higher priority to the collection, evaluation
and publication of data.
Finally, the Report
confirmed that without these steps, data will never be adequate to support
detailed needs-based resource allocation. The Report acknowledges that
many of these principles are in fact being followed in work that is underway.
However, it is observed that it is likely to be a long time before the
benefits are obtained in the form of more complete and comparable data
that can be used to measure needs as part of resource allocation processes.
The Report surveyed some initiatives taken to improve data management.
These included:
- Whole-of-government
commitments: In 1997, the Prime Minister asked the Steering Committee
on the Review of Commonwealth-State Service Provision to oversee
the preparation and publication of data on services provided to Indigenous
people. The November 2000 COAG meeting reaffirmed that requirement. - Initiatives
by the Australian Bureau of Statistics: The ABS has work underway
to increase the range and quality of nationwide statistics on Indigenous
people (see below). - Specific Purpose
Payments arrangements: Some of the recent agreements covering the
Commonwealth's Specific Purpose Payments to the States should increase
the availability of information because they require reporting against
agreed indicators of outcomes or outputs. Such conditions are included
in the Australian Health Care Agreements and the agreements under the
Indigenous Education (Targeted Assistance) Act, 2000. There is
a similar requirement covering the provision of service activity data
in the Commonwealth's agreements for funding Aboriginal Community Controlled
Health Services. - Funding and
Service Delivery in Practice: To date, much of the data on performance
indicators, such as that provided under the previous agreements, have
not been comparable across the States. The newer agreements attempt
to obtain the greater comparability that is essential if the data are
to be used for resource allocation purposes. - Initiatives
in functional areas: There has been activity to improve data quality
and availability in areas such as health and housing. In 1996, Commonwealth
and State Housing Ministers agreed to the establishment of a Commonwealth
State Working Group on Indigenous Housing (CSWGIH), which has since
developed an Agreement on National Indigenous Housing Information.
The long term aim of CSWGIH is to develop means of obtaining housing
administrative data that are consistent and compatible with related
data collections. Work has begun on collecting a minimum data set and
developing performance indicators. The work has emphasised the need
for national standards, co-ordination and commitment to the collection
of data, and for additional training and resources to help community
housing organisations collect more reliable data.
A further significant
development was the engagement by the inquiry of the Australian Bureau
of Statistics (ABS) to prepare an experimental index of Indigenous socio-economic
disadvantage. The experimental index does not provide any information
about the absolute level of disadvantage. Having determined that it is
feasible to construct the index, the ABS will examine the feasibility
of sub-dividing the index according to broad functional lines as well
as along geographical lines. ATSIC has provided detailed comments on this
index. [74]
The Government's
response to the CGC Report was discussed in detail in chapter 3.[75]
In brief, the Government
observed that the Report provided a valuable basis for development of
evidence-based policy in Indigenous affairs. The Government set out five
actions that it had agreed to in response to the Report:
- First, the adoption
of Principles for equitable provision of services to Indigenous peoples
[76] to guide its approach to meeting the needs of
Indigenous people; - Second, continued
action by the Government to reduce Indigenous disadvantage through improving
access to mainstream programs and services and by better targeting Indigenous-specific
programs to areas of greatest need, including remote locations; - Third, where
appropriate, the Government will seek to include clear Commonwealth
objectives and associated reporting requirements in respect of inputs
and regional outcomes for Indigenous Australians in renewed SPPs to
States and Territories in the areas of health, housing, infrastructure
and education; - Fourth, where
the Government provides additional funding through mainstream services
for Indigenous clients, and/or provides supplementary funding through
Indigenous specific programs, it is committed to working towards having
the ABS standard Indigenous identifier in the major mainstream administrative
data sets; and - Fifth, the Minister
will report publicly in 2005-06 on the geographic distribution of Indigenous
need, the alignment of mainstream and Indigenous-specific resources
to meet that need and the progress in making mainstream services more
accessible to Indigenous Australians.
6. Australian
Bureau of Statistics
The Australian Bureau
of Statistics continues to be one of the most important sources of statistical
information about Indigenous people and the results are used extensively
by Indigenous communities and organisations and by governments. The release
of the 2001 Census increases the amount of information available with
data being provided through publications, Community Profiles and on the
Internet. Relevant ABS information includes the following:
- Indigenous
Profile: The Indigenous Profile (IP) is part of the Census Community
Profile series, and contains 29 tables of data on Indigenous people
including comparisons with non-Indigenous people wherever possible.
The Indigenous Profile is available for geographic areas including ATSIC
regions. Data available through the profiles include age by Indigenous
status by sex; type of educational institution attending by Indigenous
status by sex; highest level of schooling by Indigenous status by sex;
language spoken at home and proficiency in spoken English by sex; computer
use by Indigenous status by age by sex etc. - The Population
Distribution of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders:
released in June 2002. This publication presents counts for Indigenous
Australians from the 2001 Census, accompanied by information on data
quality to help interpret the 2001 Census counts. Experimental resident
population estimates of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander population,
based on the 2001 Census, are also included. Census counts of the Aboriginal
and Torres Strait Islander population are also provided for small areas
(Indigenous Areas and Locations) and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander
Commission regions. - The ABS also
completed in 2001-02 the design and development of the first Indigenous
Social Survey (ISS) since the 1994 National Aboriginal and Torres
Strait Islander Survey (NATSIS). The ISS will survey 12,000 Indigenous
Australians, including those living in discrete Indigenous communities
in remote areas of Australia, and will go into the field in the second
half of 2002. - National Health
Survey: Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Results, Australia, 2001
is expected to be released late November 2002. It presents selected
data from the 2001 National Health Survey about the health of Indigenous
and non-Indigenous Australians. Topics include measures of health status,
health actions taken, and lifestyle factors which may influence health.
In response to the
need for Indigenous specific surveys, the planned ABS program for Indigenous
statistics over the next eight years provides for the regular collection
of survey data for a broad range of information requirements, and to respond
to emerging issues, including the production of regional data. While the
2001 National Health Survey included an Indigenous supplement, from 2004,
and six-yearly thereafter, the survey will include a bigger sample and
will provide national, state and territory estimates on some indicators
of health status.
The 2002 Indigenous
Social Survey (ISS), to be conducted every six years, will provide both
national and state/territory estimates that are relevant across sectors,
including health, housing, education, employment, communication, transport,
and crime and justice. The ISS objectives are to collect data on Australia's
Indigenous population in order to explore issues such as levels of and
barriers to participation in society, the extent to which people face
multiple social disadvantages and measuring changes over time in Indigenous
well-being. The ISS will collect a large amount of information in common
with the 1994 NATSIS so that comparisons in the circumstances of Indigenous
Australians can be analysed over time.
The ABS will be releasing,
as part of its Methodology Working Paper series, a Working Paper on the
methodology behind the experimental index of Indigenous socio-economic
disadvantage that was prepared under contract for the CGC (see above).
Depending on feedback from that release, the ABS may consider updating
the index using the results of the 2001 Census of Population and Housing,
and consider incorporating additional data sets as they become available.
In addition to improving
the quality of information generally held in administrative systems accessed
by Indigenous Australians, there is also a need to improve the identification
of Indigenous clients in those systems. The ABS has published a standard
for the identification of Indigenous people in administrative collections
and 'best practice' guidelines for its implementation, and is now working
across jurisdictions to increase the extent of Indigenous identification
and improve the quality of the resulting data. Initial priority has been
given to vital statistics but other data priorities include hospital separations,
community services, cancer registries, perinatal collections, schools
and vocational education and training, housing, and law and justice. The
Government has committed to introducing an Indigenous identifier to Medicare
and the public and community housing program funded through the Commonwealth
State Housing Agreement.
7. Initiatives
at the inter-governmental level related to benchmarking
In September 2002
it was announced that the Commonwealth and Queensland Governments will
work in partnership with the Cape York Indigenous communities to manage
a 'whole-of-government' approach to federal and state Government services,
as part of the 2002 COAG agreement to facilitate a co-ordinated approach
in communities. The new arrangements will let a lead agency 'broker' the
Commonwealth funding for each region, working closely with the community
and state Government.
The Department for
Employment and Workplace Relations will take the lead role on behalf of
the Commonwealth in Cape York. On 19 November 2002 the Commonwealth and
Northern Territory Governments announced agreement that the Wadeye community
will be the second site for COAG's 'whole-of-government' approach to improving
the way governments work with Indigenous communities. The Commonwealth
Department of Family and Community Services and the NT Department of Chief
Minister will take the lead roles in coordinating government agencies
and working with the Wadeye community. Other locations for the whole-of-government
initiative will be determined by discussions between the Commonwealth,
States and Territories and other Indigenous communities.
The Productivity
Commission also recently released the seventh annual report on Government
Services 2002. The report reflects the growing inclusion of Indigenous
statistics in the Report, resulting from the request by the Prime Minister
in 1997 for the Review to give particular attention to the performance
of mainstream services, which was reinforced by the 2000 COAG. The Review
reported on Indigenous-specific housing for the first time. The Review
foreshadowed assistance in its task of reporting Indigenous statistics
from work underway separately to develop indicators to assist in assessing
progress towards meeting the objectives of the COAG Reconciliation Commitment.
Of particular relevance to the Review will be a number of whole-of-government
lead indicators of social and economic disadvantage with a focus on those
issues requiring successful interventions spanning more than one ministerial
council. These include indicators of:
- Family violence
- Law and justice
- Health, housing
and community well-being - Education
The Review also noted
that its task is complicated by the administrative nature of many data
collections that do not distinguish between Indigenous and non-Indigenous
clients. The method and level of identification of Indigenous people appear
to vary across jurisdictions. In this context, the Review cross referenced
to work being undertaken by the ABS (see above).
8. The
Steering Committee framework for reporting on Indigenous disadvantage
In April 2002, COAG
decided to commission the Steering Committee for the Review of Commonwealth/State
Service Provision (SCRCSSP) to produce a regular report against key indicators
of Indigenous disadvantage. The key task of the report 'will be to identify
indicators that are of relevance to all governments and Indigenous stakeholders
and that can demonstrate the impact of program and policy interventions'.
[77]
The Committee has
now provided a draft framework for public comment. Following this, further
consultations with Indigenous communities and other experts will occur
to refine aspects of the framework. A diagram of the framework is shown
in the box below. The framework has three logically related elements,
working back from the priorities listed on the right side of the diagram.
Box
1: Draft framework for reporting on Indigenous disadvantage
Priority outcomes
The three priority
outcomes (right column in above box) are based on COAG's 'priority areas
for policy action' and provide the end focus of the Framework. They are:
- safe, healthy
and supportive family environments with strong communities and cultural
identity; - positive child
development and prevention of violence, crime and self harm; and - improved wealth
creation and economic sustainability for individuals, families and communities.[78]
The framework then
has a two tier set of indicators. These encompass 'headline indicators'
of the higher order outcomes, and a second tier or 'strategic areas for
policy' action. These emphasise the possible need for joint action within
and across governments.
The headline indicators
(shown in the centre column of the Framework) are intended to provide
a snapshot of the state of social and economic Indigenous disadvantage,
given the overall priorities that have been identified. They sit within
four areas of well-being:
- Individual capacities;
- Material/economy;
- Spiritual/cultural;
and - Family and community.[79]
These headline indicators
are higher order outcomes that reflect the longer-term more targeted policy
actions at the second tier. Collective improvements in the headline indicators
should lead to benefits in the three priority outcomes. For example, an
increase in life expectancy at birth and a decline in child sexual abuse
would clearly contribute to the achievement of, for example, 'positive
child development and prevention of violence, crime and self harm' (see
Box below).
Eight strategic areas
for action have been identified (see the left-hand column of the Framework).
For each of these strategic areas, a few key indicators ('strategic change
indicators') have been developed with their potential sensitivity to government
policies and programs in mind. These strategic change indicators are not
intended to be comprehensive - it is not possible to incorporate into
the framework all of the factors that influence outcomes for Indigenous
people. The strategic areas for action have been chosen on the evidence
that action in these areas is likely to have a significant, lasting impact
in reducing Indigenous disadvantage. The rationale for choosing the eight
areas is briefly described below:
1. Early child
development and growth (prenatal to age 3)
Early
child development can have significant effects on physical and mental
health in childhood and adulthood, growth, language development and
later educational attainment.2. Early school
engagement and performance
Early school engagement is important for establishing a foundation
for educational achievement, retention in secondary schooling, opportunities
in employment and minimising contact with the justice system later in
life.3. Positive
adolescence and transition to adulthood
Participation in school and vocational education; and community,
cultural and recreational activities, encourages self-esteem and a more
positive basis for employment. Such participation also assists in avoiding
contact with the justice system.4. Breaking
the substance abuse cycle
Abuse of alcohol and other substances affects later physical and
mental health, family and community relationships and contact with the
justice system. Tobacco use is the greatest single contributor to poor
health outcomes.5. Functional
and resilient families and communities
Functional and resilient families and communities influence the
physical and mental health of adults and children and contact with the
justice system.Problems in families
and communities can lead to breaks in schooling and education, disrupted
social relationships and social alienation.6. Building
on the strength of Indigenous culture
A strong Indigenous culture provides a foundation for strong families
and communities, economic development, self-determination and community
resilience, reduced youth alienation and reduced self-harm and suicide.7. Functioning
environmental health systems
Clean water, adequate sewerage, housing and other essential infrastructure
are important to physical well being and health, nutrition and physical
development of children.8. Economic
participation
Having a job or being involved in a business activity not only
leads to improved incomes for families and communities (which has a
positive influence on health, education of children, etc) it also enhances
self-esteem and reduces social alienation.
The lack of data,
or inability to collect them, can explain why some otherwise desirable
indicators are not included. However, where data are not currently (or
only partly) available, but the indicator is important enough, an indicator
may still be included as an incentive to improve data quality.
|
Box While the For example, The separate |
Once the Framework
has been finalised it will be submitted to COAG for agreement. A questionnaire
has been circulated for the initial consultation stage, scheduled to finish
by 15 November 2002, on the scheme outlined above. The questionnaire canvassed
a number of basic questions about the Framework.
9. Governance
and capacity building
Governance and capacity
building are receiving increased scrutiny as representing the foundation
of reconciliation, self-determination and realisation of rights. Governance
is the expression of Indigenous peoples' demand for autonomy and for the
right to take responsibility for their own lives. All levels of government
need to acknowledge that facilitating Indigenous peoples' efforts to achieve
such autonomy and improved Indigenous governance is vital to achieving
improvements in Indigenous disadvantage and the recognition of Aboriginal
and Torres Strait Islander rights. Government efforts need be focused
on negotiating governance arrangements with Indigenous peoples, including
through the provision of appropriate support (including technical support
to build capacity, long term funding arrangements and legislative backing).
The Commonwealth
Grants Commission in its Report on Indigenous Funding, ATSIC in
the Report on greater regional autonomy, and the House of Representatives
Standing Committee on Family and Community Affairs report into Indigenous
health all flag the development of mechanisms and structures for self-governance
and greater regional autonomy as the next stage and natural progression
from facilitating greater Indigenous participation.
In this sense, governance
has become central to the reconciliation agenda. The Social Justice
Report 2000 noted:
The development
of governance structures and regional autonomy provides the potential
for a successful meeting place to integrate the various strands of reconciliation.
In particular, it is able to tie together the aims of promoting recognition
of Indigenous rights, with the related aims of overcoming disadvantage
and achieving economic independence. [80]
The Report notes
that, unfortunately, during the reconciliation debate so far, there has
been insufficient acknowledgement of the inter-related nature of these
processes, which has been demonstrated by the failure to identify the
crucial nature of recognising and building Aboriginal and Torres Strait
Islander governance capacity to achieving these goals.[81]
For example, the Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation's strategy for
achieving economic independence focuses on how governments and peak private
sector organisations can apply affirmative action and culturally sensitive
initiatives. The strategy is more directed towards channeling private
sector support into the development of Indigenous economic independence,
in some instances with the encouragement of government agencies, rather
than developing more economically viable Indigenous governance structures.
A focus on governance
and capacity building emphasises the need for greater coordination of
services and the necessity for adopting a holistic approach to addressing
Indigenous need. Importantly, it also allows for renewal of Indigenous
societal structures which have been ignored, marginalised or rejected
under protectionist and assimilationist policies. In April 2002 ATSIC
Commissioner Alison Anderson reminded the Indigenous Governance Conference
(sponsored by ATSIC and Reconciliation Australia) that:
There is more than
one system of law and governance in this land it has been the
continued and almost systematic attack upon our principles of governance
which has caused so much damage to Aboriginal people.[82]
In a similar vein
Noel Pearson has emphasised the need to devolve Indigenous policy to the
local level and away from the artificial constructs of 'communities':
We need to devolve
our emphasis from communities to families. We need to start at the basic
building block of families, because Indigenous policy has been cast
adrift in a community emphasis.[83]
Pearson posits a
four-point plan for developing a real economy for Aboriginal society on
Cape York Peninsula in place of the 'passive welfare' paradigm that has
plagued Indigenous governance since the 1970s. The four components of
this plan are: access to the enjoyment of traditional subsistence resources;
changing the nature of welfare programs to reciprocity programs; developing
community economies; and engaging in the real market economy.[84]
The plan bases the
development of effective social partnerships in the creation of a regional
governance structure (specifically in the context of the Cape York Peninsula)
that re-engages Indigenous social structures and economic participation
with the 'real economy'. Central to the plan is the notion of a 'partnership
interface' between Aboriginal communities and organisations in Cape York
Peninsula and Commonwealth and state governments, and ATSIC. Agreements
would be made between government agencies and Indigenous representatives
in regard to provision of resources (that is, all government 'inputs',
such as funding, services and programs).
The new emphasis
on governance issues was reflected in the proceedings of the April Indigenous
Governance Conference. The Conference heard of international experience
with Indigenous governance. In particular, a considerable amount of research
into Indigenous governance has been undertaken through the Harvard Project
on American Indian Economic Development. The Harvard Project was represented
at the Conference by Professor Cornell and Dr Manley Begay Jr of the Navajo
nation.
The aim of the Harvard
Project was to discover the reasons why certain Indian nations had been
able to break away from a century of poverty and powerlessness. The Conference
paper reported on the critical role that self-governance has played in
the changing fortunes of certain American Indian nations. Over the last
quarter of a century, a number of American Indian nations have been unusually
successful in building sustainable, self-determined economies. Perhaps
the most striking aspect of The Harvard Project research results is the
significance of self-governance in the accomplishments of these nations.
Beginning in the 1970s, Indigenous nations in the United States have asserted
increasing degrees of control over their own affairs, resources, development
strategies, and governing structures. In the process, they have demonstrated
the power of self-rule as a basis of community and economic development
and as a vehicle for building societies that work.
Several factors have
been particularly important in what they have done. First, they have claimed
and asserted the right to govern themselves and, in effect, have taken
over control of much of their own affairs. Second, they have built effective
governing institutions - that is, they have found ways to exercise power
effectively in pursuit of their own objectives. In short, they govern
well. Third, these governing institutions have paid attention to Indigenous
political culture: to how their own peoples believe authority should be
organised and exercised. And fourth, they have thought in strategic terms,
moving away from crisis management and opportunism toward a set of long-term
societal goals. These factors, taken together, constitute what the Project
has come to call a nation-building process: putting in place the institutional
foundations of effective self-governance.
Fred Chaney, co-chair
of Reconciliation Australia, provided the following 14 point summary of
the main outcomes of the Governance Conference:
1. Good governance
requires communities which have genuine decision-making powers, as overwhelmingly
confirmed by the evidence presented at the conference.2. The compelling
evidence presented to the conference from local experiences and by the
overseas contributors shows that sustained and measurable improvements
in the social and economic well-being of Indigenous peoples only occurs
when real decision-making power is vested in their communities, when
they build effective governing institutions, and when the decision-making
processes of these institutions reflect the cultural values and beliefs
of the people.3. We need to
avoid divisive and artificial arguments about terms such as sovereignty
and focus on the underlying substance that people want real power to
take real decisions and act on them.4. The examples
presented to the conference demonstrate the value and relevance of customary
law in dealing with contemporary problems and issues.5. It is clear
that the primary push for good governance must come from the people
themselves, using whatever tools and strategic opportunities are available.
In other words, in the slogan much used at the conference, 'Just do
it'.6. At the same
time, it is crucial to develop skills and capacities in communities
for people to effectively carry out the tasks of governance so that
it delivers tangible benefits for communities and the people.7. It is also
clear that governments have a critical role at the national, state,
territory and regional levels. They must exercise that role firstly
by understanding that communities need to be given the necessary powers,
secondly by developing good public policy around this understanding,
and finally by providing the necessary support and resources - for example,
through block funding as outlined at the conference by Jack Ah Kit in
relation to the Katherine West Health Board.8. Specifically,
the recommendations of the Commonwealth Grants Commission's Report
on Indigenous Funding 2001 need to be seriously considered and actively
debated, not buried or cherry-picked. We need to understand and use
the information revealed in this report to ensure more appropriate allocation
of funds by governments to compensate for Indigenous disadvantage. Although
funding formulas take Indigenous disadvantage into account, they don't
ensure that the resulting funds are directed to dealing with that disadvantage.9. It is essential
to celebrate our successes and share knowledge so that good governance
becomes an essential part of our everyday conversation.10. Another key
element is transparent and accountable leadership committed to the welfare
of the community rather than its own advancement.11. This raises
the critical issue of how to best ensure the development of future leaders
- especially young leaders - with all the skills to make these things
happen.12. In developing
Indigenous governance, we need to consider what our overseas participants
have referred to as the separation of powers - distinguishing between
a structure for setting goals and directions, one for carrying out the
essential tasks, and yet another for settling disputes and ensuring
that agreed rules are observed. For example, there might be a board
or council which sets the policy, staff who implement the policy, and
an independent body to resolve disputes through agreed procedures.13. It is important
to employ people with appropriate skills and application, and with integrity.14. There is no
single magic formula - no 'one size fits all' - in governance or economic
development.
In respect of point
14, it is clear from a range of governance and autonomy arrangements that
have significant achievements in terms of self determination and responsibility,
that there is no single, 'one size fits all', model of governance for
all situations. Examples of evolving governance models range from major
regional arrangements, such as the Torres Strait Regional Authority, to
local arrangements, such as the justice approach at Ali-Curung community
in the Northern Territory, and a spread of situations in between. For
example, Murdi Paaki in western NSW which has developed a model for regional
planning underpinned with regional agreements to target better outcomes
for service delivery, and the Katherine Health Care Trial has established
a successful model of effective community participation and coordinated
planning.
The Social Justice
Report 2000 argued that Governments should agree to negotiate mechanisms
to facilitate greater regional autonomy through the design and delivery
of programs and services. Negotiations should include matters such as:
- developing flexible
funding arrangements with Indigenous organisations, including transfer
of funding, block funding and arrangements for pooling funds across
governments and on a regional basis; and - Indigenous participation
in developing service delivery priorities, setting benchmarks and targets
on a regional basis, and in monitoring and evaluating progress.
Essential to the
development of effective governance is capacity building, currently the
subject of a Parliamentary Inquiry.[85]
10. Developments
at State and Territory level
The implementation
of the reconciliation agenda of addressing Indigenous disadvantage takes
place essentially at the state or territory level, although the three
tiers of government are necessarily involved. Various state and territory
governments are in the formative stages of adopting more coordinated,
long term, whole-of-government strategies to Indigenous policy development
and service delivery.
As indicated above,
whole-of-government approaches are now being implemented in Cape York
and in the Wadeye community in the Northern Territory. A detailed range
of state and territory initiatives currently in development is provided
in Appendix 1 of this Report. Examples include:
- NSW Service Delivery
Partnership Agreement between the NSW Government, ATSIC and the NSW
Aboriginal Land Council, signed 1 November 2002; - In July 2002
the Queensland Government and ATSIC signed a 'Commitment to Partnership'; - ATSIC and South
Australia Government Partnering Agreement December 2001; - ATSIC/SA State
Government Bilateral Agreement for provision of essential services to
Aboriginal communities - currently under negotiation; - ATSIC and Western
Australia Statement of Commitment October 2000; and - Victorian Aboriginal
Justice Agreement (2000) and ATSIC/Victorian Government Communiqué
of June 2000.
In the case of Queensland,
a number of steps have been undertaken to implement programs to address
Indigenous disadvantage, consistent with COAG principles and in partnership
with Indigenous communities. The Queensland Aboriginal and Torres Strait
Islander Justice Agreement [86] signed in December
2000 is part of this approach. The objective of the Justice Agreement
is to reduce Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander over-representation
in the criminal justice system. The Agreement originates in the 1997 National
Ministerial Summit, where Indigenous community representatives met with
Commonwealth and state Ministers for justice, police, corrective services
and Aboriginal Affairs. In Queensland, the Justice Agreement is the result,
fulfilling in part the resolution of the 1997 Summit.
The Justice Agreement
in turn is part of the Ten Year Partnership which aims to improve living
standards of Indigenous Queenslanders over the next 10 years. The Ten
Year Partnership's objective is to see the Queensland Government coordinate
its activities more effectively and put in place new ways of measuring
progress. This is intended to reduce duplication and confusion for Indigenous
communities who have to deal with a range of different government departments.
The Cape York Partnerships
[87] is an example of the types of partnerships that
can be developed. Cape York Partnerships involves Indigenous organisations
in Cape York, in conjunction with the Queensland Premier and Cabinet,
in merging service providers into one interface, at a community level.
This interface revolves around 'partnerships negotiation tables', so that
individual communities can directly address senior government staff with
the community's priorities and aspirations, and facilitate a direct line
of responsibility from community level to senior government level. The
Premier, Mr Beattie, places initiatives such as Cape York Partnerships
clearly in the context of reconciliation. Of the partnership, he has said:
Cape York Partnerships
is about changing the way Government and communities work together.
Cape York Partnerships does not rely on sweeping statements of good
intentions or obvious need. This is no longer relevant. We want to concentrate
on a range of immediate and practical strategies and commitments.[88]
The Ten Year Partnership
has identified eight key areas for action and has proposed outcomes for
each area. In terms of the area of justice, the outcome sought is a demonstrated
continuing reduction in the number of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander
peoples coming into contact with the Queensland criminal justice system,
so that the rate of contact is reduced to at least the same rate as that
of other Queenslanders. The 10 year objective (that is by 2011) is a 50
percent reduction in the rate of Indigenous Queenslanders incarcerated
in prisons or youth detention centers. Outcome indicators are identified
at the broad level (for which data is already available), and also at
the more detailed level (where current data may be deficient). An annual
report is to be prepared and there is to be an independent evaluation
every three years. The Agreement acknowledges that significant gaps exist
in relevant criminal justice data, and provides mechanisms for improved
data collection.
The Queensland situation
represents a series of initiatives, at regional and statewide level, in
partnership with Indigenous organisations and in co-operation with ATSIC
and the federal Government, to attempt to address Indigenous disadvantage
as an integral part of the reconciliation agenda.
Part 2:
Incorporating human rights into benchmarking reconciliation
The previous section
has provided an outline of a significant range of measures that are relevant
to benchmarking reconciliation in an international and domestic context.
This material was the basis of discussion over two days at the workshop
that I convened on 28-29 November 2002.
The workshop proceeded
with an overview of the issues discussed in part one of this chapter,
and particularly with an overview of the Draft framework for reporting
on Indigenous disadvantage prepared by the Steering Committee for
the Review of Commonwealth/State Service Provision (SCRCSSP). The participants
then considered the following issues over the course of the workshop:
- Indigenous
participation in benchmarking. How to ensure adequate Indigenous
participation in the setting and monitoring of benchmarks and indicators; - Australia's
obligations to progressively realise economic, social and cultural rights.
How to ensure that Australia's human rights obligations to progressively
realise the equal enjoyment of economic, social and cultural rights
are reflected in monitoring frameworks and are being met. - Statistics.
How to ensure that statistical collection is adequate to support the
measuring of Indigenous disadvantage and the monitoring of progress
for its progressive realisation. - Building Indigenous
community capacity and governance. How to ensure that the objective
of community capacity building and strengthening and supporting Indigenous
governance is integrally linked to processes for addressing Indigenous
disadvantage. - The draft
indicative framework for measuring Indigenous disadvantage, as prepared
by the Steering Committee. In light of the previous discussion, an opportunity
was provided to discuss the detail of the proposed indicative framework.
This section reports
on the discussion of these issues at the benchmarking workshop. The discussions
were wide-ranging and raise more questions than they answer. The broader
implications of the workshop's discussions for benchmarking are then discussed
in the concluding comments of this chapter.
1) Indigenous
participation in benchmarking
The Workshop considered
four key issues in respect of benchmarking reconciliation. The question
posed for the session dealing with the first issue, Indigenous participation
in benchmarking, was:
How can it be ensured
that Indigenous participation in setting priorities, identifying targets,
developing benchmarks, monitoring performance and evaluating programs
is effective, culturally appropriate and truly reflects Indigenous aspirations
rather than those of the wider community?
It was noted that,
other than through ATSIC, there appeared to be little knowledge in the
Indigenous community of the current developments to establish indicators
to report on outcomes of government strategies and programs. To virtually
exclude the Indigenous community from participation in the development
of strategies and benchmarks runs the risk of further entrenching dependency
and compounding the public policy failure of the last 30 years.
In considering Indigenous
participation, reference was made to the concept of 'cultural match' adopted
by the Harvard Project in the United States.[89] This
Project identified the significance of self-governance in those Indian
nations that had been successful and self-determining. In turn, successful
Indigenous governing institutions were seen to have be those that had
developed with close attention paid to Indigenous political culture, that
is how their own people believe authority should be organised and exercised.
The tendency was
noted for people to suggest that Indigenous peoples having a role in service
delivery to meet their communities is interpreted as 'special rights'.
It was suggested that a concept of equality that focuses not on equality
in process but on whether there is equal protection is a more appropriate
way of viewing the issues. The equality sought should lie in the equality
of protection of rights rather than simple equality of outcomes.
There was considerable
discussion on the distinction between merely consulting with Indigenous
people, as opposed to negotiating and agreeing issues in partnership with
them. It was widely accepted that there is a need for Indigenous involvement
in setting performance frameworks at all stages - that is the beginning
of the process as well as at the end. In this context questions were raised
as to the extent that Indigenous peoples may be able to influence the
decision-making process in respect of indicators and benchmarks. That
is, are the parameters to be set by government, and are Indigenous people
only being asked to respond or confirm in the restricted sense of 'consultation'.
Is there to be a role for negotiation? The importance of there being some
Indigenous control over decision-making, rather than merely providing
a confirmation of an already made decision, was stressed. There is a need
to determine if the process of consultation is one to simply 'capture'
information, rather than a process aimed at facilitating participation
and shared decision-making.
While one participant
pointed to the large investment in resources and time that would be required
for a proper consultation process, it was pointed out in response that
national or peak Indigenous bodies exist for particular areas of concern
and that they could be appropriate intermediate bodies for consultation
and negotiation.
Further concerns
about the consultation process were raised in terms of who can actually
represent Indigenous views. It was pointed out that some structures that
have been put in place to represent Indigenous views, such as community
councils in Queensland, may not in fact be representative of Indigenous
views.
Regarding Indigenous
participation, the workshop identified the importance of having principles
to underpin negotiation and consultation. Recommendation 12 of the Social
Justice Report 2000 was noted, which proposed that the federal Government
and COAG adopt the Principles for Indigenous social justice and the
development of relations between the Commonwealth Government and Aboriginal
and Torres Strait Islander Peoples as proposed by ATSIC in Recognition,
rights and reform, as forming the framework for negotiations about
service delivery arrangements, regional governance and unfinished business.
A number of best
practice models for consultation with Indigenous peoples were identified
by participants. These included the longer term, open ended and localised
approach of the Stronger Families package, [90] as well
as the process engaged in by the Commonwealth Grants Commission for the
Indigenous funding Inquiry.[91]
Generally though
it was noted that current approaches to consultation are often inadequate,
opaque and selective in their approach. In this context, concerns were
raised that the Draft framework for reporting on Indigenous disadvantage
does not reflect an Indigenous perspective. The decision-making process
about the framework, as distinct from any consultations undertaken, is
non-Indigenous at all stages. There needs to be some way of ensuring Indigenous
peoples are at the table in negotiating the structure of the Draft framework.
Otherwise, the process will be seen as a classic government approach -
the agenda already decided, and no space for other ideas to be brought
forward.
Given the concerns
expressed about the adequacy of consultation and negotiation with Indigenous
interests over the Draft framework, the question was asked: why are we
having benchmarks and indicators? There is a fundamental consultation
and negotiation problem here and the risk is of continuing cynicism and
frustration on the part of Indigenous people. There needs to be an acknowledgement
that as a result of the Mabo decision and native title, the framework
for negotiation with Indigenous people has changed. Indigenous people
should be at the negotiating table as of right.
2) Progressive
realisation of economic, social and cultural rights
The question posed
for this session of the workshop was, in the context of achieving progressive
realisation of economic, social and cultural rights, how to ensure a long
term perspective in the design and implementation of programs and services
so that goals can be set with a degree of security. In respect of ensuring
a long term perspective, the workshop was asked:
How can this objective
be achieved in a climate of short term and pilot projects, grant application
driven programming, and outsourcing of government functions?
The difficulty of
overcoming Indigenous disadvantage within short term timeframes was broadly
agreed. It was noted that there is a need to develop longer term funding
cycles and that long term objectives cannot run in parallel with an approach
focused only on short term projects, trials etc. Short and medium term
objectives should be consistent with and build towards long term objectives.
Governmental perspectives need to be longer than the electoral cycle.
Many areas of disadvantage, for example education, are simply not susceptible
to short term solutions.
Long term planning
can in fact coexist with shorter term activities, where the long term
planning (say 25 years) is broken up into shorter parts (projects and
programs). That is, the human rights requirement or obligation is to take
steps, in the context of progressive realisation. However, the steps must
be targeted, and contribute to the longer term objectives.The objective
of greater matching of funding with needs was also noted. Statewide housing
agreements/block funding/comprehensive regional agreements were seen as
attempts to move to longer term planning horizons.
A key matter identified
was the outcomes of government programs and expenditure. Given the resources
expended, outcomes to date have been disappointing. Indeed, concerns were
expressed that the extent of unmet need may actually be growing in some
areas.
The question of control
over funding is important and concerns were expressed at current funding
arrangements, and the lack of control by and involvement of Indigenous
people in funding-related decision-making processes. This lack of control
is exemplified by native title. Although native title is an entitlement,
the approach to native title funding does not reflect this. Prescribed
Bodies Corporate act in trust or as agent for native title holders following
a determination of title. They are a legal requirement and are set up
under the provisions of Native Title Act, yet they are not funded. Overall,
it was felt that it is necessary to facilitate greater Indigenous involvement
in funding decisions.
3) Statistics
As the development
of benchmarks and indicators is based on the use, analysis and interpretation
of statistics, a session was devoted to this topic. Discussion was wide-ranging.
Concern was expressed
that Indigenous people have been 'over researched' and statistics have
been misrepresented and used against them. This results in a degree of
cynicism and mistrust and is a significant issue in respect of developing
indicators and benchmarks. Indigenous people need to be confident that
statistics are being used properly and in particular that appropriate
benchmarks are being set. Indigenous people should participate in these
matters.
There are difficulties
with obtaining information to enable identification of Indigenous service
users, including sensitivity and privacy. However, this identification
provides key data for a number of indicators. Training is needed for staff
of agencies and organisation in collecting this data. There is in general
a need to educate, train and enable Indigenous people about the use of
statistics so that statistics can be fully utilised in addressing Indigenous
disadvantage, including by Indigenous organisations to support proposals
and submissions for additional resources.
There are significant
deficiencies in data collections, including the lack of consistent data
over a sufficient time period to enable adequate comparison. These deficiencies
need to be addressed as a matter of priority to ensure validity and credibility
in the development and use of indicators. There is also a need to get
data as accurate as possible on a regional basis. National statistics
do not reflect the wide variety of Indigenous circumstances. Statistics
along a regional basis (perhaps based on ATSIC regions) can be more important.
Statistical benchmarks
in respect of employment (for example, does the Community Development
Employment Program - CDEP - measure employment or does it disguise unemployment?),
and housing, where different use patterns may mean that definitions of
what constitutes households may be at variance with mainstream understandings,
are problematic in designing indicators and analysing data. Interpretation
of statistics may be difficult across a number of indicators. There is
a tendency for statistics to evaluate Indigenous well-being from a mainstream
approach. Indicators may not adequately reflect issues such as participation
in traditional economies. Meanings and values may differ between Indigenous
and non-Indigenous populations rendering statistical analysis value-laden
and potentially misleading. These matters need to be addressed in developing
indicators.
In response to these
concerns, the idea was raised of whether it is possible to build in to
indicators and benchmarks a subjective element. How do Indigenous people
perceive their disadvantage? For example, this could be done by surveying
Indigenous people for their views on what they need as communities and
families - such an approach would be constitutive of 'effective partnership'.
The type of statistics
can be divided into classifications: census data; administrative data,
and expenditure data. There are problems with interpretation of census
data, including the issue of the growth of the Indigenous population according
to the Census. Administrative data includes the extent to which Indigenous
people use services - benchmarks are needed on the scope and quality of
administrative data, which currently has many gaps and is inconsistent
between jurisdictions. With expenditure data it is important to identify
expenditure on Indigenous people.
It was suggested
that ATSIC could strengthen its advocacy role by increasing its analysis
and use of statistics. However, there is a problem with ATSIC getting
access to relevant statistics (for example in the area of Aboriginal Health
Services).
4) Building
Indigenous governance and capacity building into benchmarking
The discussion of
governance matters proved quite difficult, possibly reflecting the relative
lack attention that has been given to such matters in developing the Draft
framework for reporting on Indigenous disadvantage in a climate of
'practical reconciliation'. The discussion indicated that there is a degree
of ambiguity as to what people mean by terms such as governance and capacity
building.
The question posed
to the Workshop was:
How should governance
arrangements take into account Indigenous culture and norms (or at least,
that they are not hostile to Indigenous law and practice)?
Suggestions were
made about the need to be able to match cultural requirements with management
requirements, about the importance of communities developing the capacity
to consult and conduct negotiations, and about the need to develop the
necessary infrastructure to support decision-making. The Harvard Project
was noted as relevant to this issue because of its findings on the importance
of effective Indigenous governance in achieving economic, social and cultural
progress.
It was argued that
the operation of the Aboriginal Councils and Associations Act is problematic
in terms of delivering good Indigenous governance and it appeared to have
led to a plethora of Aboriginal organisations. If so, was this wasteful
of resources? It was argued that the problem of too many organisations
is created in part by the grant application process, and the consequent
need to be incorporated to get funding.
Reference was made
to the summary made by Fred Chaney, co-chair of Reconciliation Australia,
of the outcomes of the Indigenous Governance Conference held in April
2002. In particular, two paragraphs of the summary were noted:
Paragraph 5
noting that it is clear that the primary push for good governance must
come from the people themselves, using whatever tools and strategic
opportunities are available. In the words of the slogan much used at
the conference, 'Just do it'.Paragraph 6
noted that, at the same time, it is crucial to develop skills and capacities
in communities for people to effectively carry out the tasks of governance
so that it delivers tangible benefits for communities and people.
The point at issue
accordingly becomes how does that critical link between the two aspects,
governance and capacity, get made. It was suggested that an important
factor, at this stage, may be for work to be done to identify 'presence
and absence factors' - i.e., identifying what capacity is missing in communities
as well as what is in place.
A key concern from
the benchmarking reconciliation perspective was how governance and capacity
building become integral to the strategic indicators framework.
5) Discussion
of the Steering Committee's draft framework for reporting on Indigenous
disadvantage
Following discussion
of the issues referred to above, the workshop returned to its consideration
of the Draft framework for reporting on Indigenous disadvantage developed
by the Steering Committee under COAG.
The Chair of the
Steering Committee noted that the framework seeks to avoid a 'silo' approach
whereby issues are sorted into bureaucratic bundles. It is intended to
be holistic in its intent. While the indicators are sometimes associated
with functional areas such as health or education, the indicators in this
framework typically cover a number of sectors in terms of their impacts.
It was also noted
that the Steering Committee has formed an Indigenous Working Group for
the process of developing the framework. The Working Group is comprised
of central agencies from all levels of government including ATSIC; MCATSIA;
the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (AIHW); the Australian
Bureau of Statistics (ABS) and Australian Local Government Association
(ALGA). In respect of consultation on the Draft framework, the consultation
process has been devolved to each state and territory who have provided
reports on their consultations (with Victoria and Tasmania yet to report).
The Steering Committee itself has then conducted additional consultations.
Feedback on the framework
to that time had shown broad support for the Draft framework. There is
support for the whole-of-government approach and the focus on outcomes.
A number of government agencies have indicated that they see the framework
as synergistic to what they are doing. The Steering Committee noted that
it needed further guidance on the inclusion of 'spiritual and cultural
indicators' within the framework. A strong reaction has been that these
may be too problematic, although they are matters which are at the same
time fundamental to Indigenous well-being. Another matter requiring further
consideration is how to measure indicators concerning decision-making,
self-determination and autonomy.
The Steering Committee
noted that the following concerns had been raised in consultations on
the framework:
- the framework
may be too sterile and requires qualitative contextual discussion; - it may become
an 'annual misery index' focusing on problems rather than positive developments; - there are significant
problems with data availability and statistical collection; - there are problems
of differentiation between population groups (eg urban/remote) - 'one
size fits all' indicators may not be appropriate; and - concern at how
the reporting process of the framework will be tied to other processes
in respect of policy and planning (in this regard, the question is whether
there should be a third tier of indicators which is tied to service
delivery. However, it has been suggested that this aspect could be appropriately
covered under the Ministerial Action Plans reporting processes).
In terms of the future
development of the Draft framework, it was noted that while the first
step is the approval of COAG for the framework, this would not see the
Draft framework as being inflexible or unable to be changed in the future.
It will require a process of continuous improvement.
A number of suggestions
and comments were made on the Draft framework in the workshop.
It was noted that
the framework is stripped of any Indigenous specific content. The concern
was expressed that the framework does not seek to include in its measurements
of progress the extent to which services may be culturally appropriate,
and involves Indigenous peoples in design and delivery.
A second related
concern was the need to ensure that Indigenous participation and decision-making
are reflected in and measured by the strategic indicators, and that, in
particular, the framework incorporates and seeks to measure the goal of
capacity building in Indigenous communities.
Measures of accessibility
to services need to be reflected in the indicators (including in urban
settings). Concern was also expressed that some of the draft indicators,
for example measurements of building healthy communities and families,
tend to focus on negative measurements (crime, abuse etc) rather than
capacity building. In this respect, for example, the prominence given
to child sexual abuse in the first tier 'headline' indicators appears
to be indicative of a negative emphasis in the indicators, rather than
a balance between negative results and positive developments in building
the capacity of families and communities to function in a supportive and
caring way.
Some participants
felt that the construction of the indicators in this way perhaps indicated
a lack of appropriate consultation and negotiation with Indigenous communities.
In a similar context,
the relationship between the first and second tier indicators is not always
clear. There was a concern that the indicators may reflect insufficient
research or a failure to consult widely enough to obtain representative
views of Indigenous peoples and communities.
A key concern with
the Draft framework was the apparent failure to measure involvement in
the subsistence economy and traditional activities as against the market
economy. The importance of subsistence and traditional activities does
not appear to be represented in the indicators and this would potentially
skew the results, particularly against remote and outstation communities.
It was suggested
that there is also a need to 'audit' existing commitments and measurements
at the state and territory level to identify whether the Draft framework
could build on already existing commitments. For example, it was noted
that the Queensland Ten Year Partnership has a range of measurements for
justice outcomes that may be appropriate or applicable to the draft Framework's
attempt to measure similar outcomes. It was noted, for example, that the
Queensland model uses a headline indicator of over-representation in corrections,
but also notes a range of supporting indicators that contribute to this
outcome such as changes in the percentage of Indigenous people who are
given bail rather than remanded in custody; use of arrest rather than
cautioning by police etc.
This is a technical
issue that will need attention. Even though the Draft framework does not
purport to establish targets, consistency of data sets will be important,
and analysing why a target has or has not been met is a similar exercise
to interpreting progress against the strategic indicators of the Draft
framework.
Conclusion
- Where to from here?
The Workshop and
preparatory material raises a number of serious concerns from a human
rights perspective about the current development of indicators and benchmarks
in respect of Indigenous disadvantage. There are five main concerns identified
by the workshop.
First, the current
draft framework for reporting on Indigenous disadvantage appears to have
been developed with little reference to human rights standards, to Australia's
international obligations, or to relevant international experience. Perhaps
reflecting an emphasis on 'practical reconciliation', the Draft framework
consequently fails to develop a series of indicators of Indigenous socio-economic
disadvantage within a rights framework.
The Draft framework
should be further reviewed against human rights criteria. Such a review
needs to be informed by international standards and current international
developments. Specific reference should particularly be made to the Draft
Guidelines on Poverty Alleviation developed by the UNDP and the UN Office
of the High Commissioner for Human Rights.
My office will continue
to discuss these issues with the Steering Committee to seek to ensure
that the human rights dimension of benchmarking reconciliation is understood
and able to be built into the Draft framework.
Second, serious concerns
were also expressed about the failure of the proposed indicators to adequately
reflect Indigenous governance and capacity-building objectives. These
matters require urgent attention before the Draft framework is approved
by COAG. Given the apparent commitment to these issues by the federal
Government, this is a test of the extent to which it is actually prepared
to negotiate and enter into partnerships with Indigenous communities.
Third, the present
failure of the indicators to reflect traditional and subsistence economic
activity and production is a major concern. It is likely to skew results
against remote and outstation communities. Urgent attention needs to be
given to the literature and research on these matters, including the work
of CAEPR, and subsistence production and activity needs to be accommodated
in the indicators.
Fourth, the Draft
framework intends to provide a reporting tool on a national basis. However,
it needs also to be able to be disaggregated to a sufficient level to
provide meaningful and realistic results as a guide to policy review and
formulation. The ability to disaggregate results on a regional basis would
appear to be a high priority (perhaps by ATSIC region). Consultation with
the Commonwealth Grants Commission and ATSIC may be appropriate.
Fifth, considerable
concern was evident at the Workshop about the level and nature of consultation
to date with Indigenous representatives, organisations and communities
about the Draft framework, including the tight deadlines prevailing and
whether the consultation has been wide and/or representative enough. There
is the possibility that the Draft framework, rather than being perceived
as a positive tool for partnership between governments and Indigenous
peoples, will be met with suspicion and distrust, and seen as yet another
government contrivance thrust upon Indigenous society.
To ensure that the
Draft framework is seen as a positive step towards reconciliation based
on an effective partnership between government and Indigenous Australians,
it would appear important at this stage to ensure that ATSIC and other
relevant Indigenous peak bodies are brought fully into the consultation
and negotiation loop, as a matter of priority.
These are significant
issues that must be addressed. The Steering Committee framework though,
must be acknowledged as a significant development. It is in fact the only
positive form of monitoring and evaluation that the Government has provided
for practical reconciliation. The overarching concern however is that
if constructed and too narrowly focused on practical reconciliation, to
the exclusion of other important factors it could be co-opted as a political
tool for reinforcing and legitimising what is ultimately a limited approach
to Indigenous issues.
Care must be taken,
however, to ensure that the Steering Committee framework is not seen as
a panacea or as intended to fulfill the monitoring role across the full
range of issues. In my view, the greatest deficiency in this process is
not the draft indicative framework per se but the fact that it currently
exists in isolation from any other form of performance monitoring, particularly
on identifying progress on important goals such as capacity building and
governance reform, as well as identifying the unmet need and accordingly
whether policy approaches are moving forward or in fact regressing.
This raises significant
challenges for ATSIC and peak Indigenous organisations in housing, health
and other areas. There needs to be attention to understanding the implications
of the indicative framework, as well as the Productivity Commission's
report on government services, so that this significant statistical material
can be used to underlie policy formulation and debate.
As part of its current
restructure and review processes, ATSIC should consider whether at the
national and regional level they have the capability and capacity to conduct
the level of statistical analysis and research that is needed to capitalise
on these developments.
The proposed framework
also has implications for organisations such as the Centre for Aboriginal
Economic Policy Research and the Menzies School of Health Research to
name but two. Those organisations with the expertise to analyse this material
should prioritise its use to ensure that their output is as policy relevant
as possible.
The Steering Committee's
framework is a significant institutional development in measuring progress
for Indigenous peoples. It is a partial measure, however, and needs to
be built on with other processes and analysis.
1
Note: The full version of the issues paper and all background materials
prepared for the workshop, a list of participants and the full workshop
report are available online. See www.humanrights.gov.au/social_justice/.
I thank Greg Marks for writing and researching the issues paper and preparing
the report of the workshop on which this chapter is based.
2
See, for example, Davidson, B and Jennett, C, Addressing Disadvantage
- A Greater Awareness of the Causes of Indigenous Australians' Disadvantage,
Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation (CAR); CAR and the Centre for Aboriginal
Economic Policy Research (CAEPR), Overview Paper, prepared for the 'Towards
a Benchmarking framework for service delivery to Indigenous Australians
Workshop November 1998'; CAR, Appendix 2 Statistics of social and economic
well-being ,in Overcoming Disadvantage, CAR, Canberra, 2000.
3
See, for example, Pearson, N, The Light on the Hill, Ben Chifley
Memorial Lecture 12 August 2000 at www.capeyorkpartnerships.com; Sutton,
P, The Politics of Suffering: Indigenous Policy Failure in Australia
Since the Seventies, March 2001. Revised version of the Inaugural
Berndt Foundation Biennial Lecture September 2000; Trugden, R, Why
Warriors Lie Down and Die, ARDS, Darwin, 2000.
4
Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights: Concluding Observations:
Australia 01/09/2000, UN Doc: E/C.12/1/add.50, 1 September 2000, paragraph
15.
5
Hunter, B, 'Three nations, not one; Indigenous and other Australian poverty',
CAEPR Working Paper No.1/1999, Canberra, 1999. Available on line at www.anu.edu.au/caepr.
6
Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody, National Report,
AGPS, Canberra, 1991.
7
ibid, Volume 1 para 1.3.1-1.3.3
9
Quoted in Commonwealth Grants Commission, Report on Indigenous Funding
2001, Canberra, 2001, p89.
10
ATSIC, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples and Australia's
Obligations under the United Nations International Covenant on Economic,
Social and Cultural Rights, ATSIC, Canberra, 2000, p39.
11
Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation, Australia's Challenge, CAR,
Canberra, 2000.
12
Social Justice Report 2000, p100.
14
See ATSIC, Recognition, rights and reform: Report to Government on
native title social justice measures, Canberra, ATSIC, 1995, pp 9-10.
15
Howard, J, Council of Australian Governments communiqué,
media release, 3 November 2000.
16
Social Justice Report 2001, p25.
18
Senate Legal and Constitutional Committee, Inquiry into Progress Towards
National Reconciliation at www.aph.gov.au/senate/committee/legcon_ctte/reconciliation/index.htm.
19
Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (CESCR), General
Comment 3: The nature of States parties obligations, Contained in
UN Doc: E/1991/23, 14/12/90.
25
CESCR, General Comment 4: The Right to adequate housing, Contained
in UN Doc: E/1992/23, 13/12/91.
29
Commenting on discussion about resourcing outstations on Cape York, David
Martin (Centre for Aboriginal Economic Policy Research) has stated: 'It's
not a matter of pouring vast extra sums of money into building suburban
houses in remote locations. It's about providing the means for people
to exercise initiative, move into situations where they can feel more
in control of their lives and then building from that.' ABC News feature,
Homelands sweet home, October 30 2002.
30
CESCR, General Comment No. 14 (2000): The Right to the highest attainable
standard of health, UN Doc: E/C.12/2000/4, 11/08/2000.
31
For example, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights Article 25.1, ICERD,
Article 5 (e) (iv), Convention on the Rights of the Child (CROC) Article
24.
32
CESCR, General Comment No. 14 (2000): The Right to the highest attainable
standard of health, op cit, para 11.
34
United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), Human Development Report
2000 - Human rights and human development, UNDP, New York, 2000. www.undp.org/hdro/HDR2000.html.
35
High Commissioner for Human Rights and UNDP, Draft Guidelines on Poverty
Alleviation, OHCHR, Geneva, 2002.
36
UNDP, World Development Report 2000, op cit, p89.
40
High Commissioner for Human Rights and UNDP, Draft Guidelines on Poverty
Alleviation, op cit, para 1.
43
These considerations are also directly relevant to the current redrafting
by the Federal Government of Australia's National Action Plan on Human
Rights. National Action Plans are lodged with the UNHCHR as a statement
to the international community of how a country is progressing in implementing
human rights in a practical sense. The previous Australian Plan was drawn
up in 1997.
44
Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation and Centre for Aboriginal Economic
Policy Research, Towards a benchmarking framework for service delivery
to Indigenous Australians, Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra, 1998,
p4.
50
Taylor, J, 'Geographic location and Aboriginal economic status: A Census-based
analysis of outstations in Australia's Northern Territory', CAEPR Discussion
Paper 8, CAEPR, Canberra, 1991, p27.
51
Altman, J C and Smith, D E, 'Estimating the Reliance of Aboriginal Australians
on welfare: Some policy implications', CAEPR Discussion Paper 19, CAEPR,
Canberra, 1992.
53
Social Justice Report 2000, p103.
54
CAR, Overcoming disadvantage, op cit.
55
Rowse, T, op cit, provides a critical overview of the work of CAEPR
during its first decade.
56
Taylor, J, Regional Change in the Economic Status of Indigenous Australians,
1986-9, CAEPR Research Monograph 5, CAEPR, Canberra, 1993.
57
Rowse, T, op cit, pp32, 35.
58
High Commissioner for Human Rights and UNDP, Draft Guidelines on Poverty
Alleviation, op cit, Guideline 1, para 50.
59
Taylor, J and Altman, J, The Job Ahead: Escalating Economic Costs of
Indigenous Employment Disparity, ATSIC, Canberra, 1997.
60
Taylor, J and Hunter, B, The Job Still Ahead, ATSIC, Canberra,
1998.
61
Hunter, B, 'Three nations, not one: Indigenous and other Australian poverty',
op cit.
62
Hunter, B, Kennedy, S and Biddle, N, 'One size fits all? The effect of
equivalence scales on Indigenous economic and other poverty' CAEPR Working
Paper No. 19, CAEPR, Canberra, 2002.
63
Daly, A E, 'The participation of Aboriginal people in the Australian labour
market', CAEPR Discussion Paper 6, CAEPR, Canberra, 1991.
64
Gray, M, Hunter, B and Schwab, R G, 'A critical survey of Indigenous education
outcomes 1986-1996' CAEPR Discussion Paper 208, CAEPR, Canberra, 1998.
65
Schwab, R G, 'Having it "both ways": The continuing complexities
of community-controlled Indigenous education' CAEPR Discussion paper 111,
CAEPR, Canberra, 1996.
66
Gray, A, 'The explosion of Aboriginality: Components of Indigenous population
growth 1991-96', CAEPR Discussion Paper 142, CAEPR, Canberra, 1997; 'Growth
of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander population, 1991-2001 and
beyond', CAEPR Discussion Paper 150, CAEPR, Canberra, 1997.
67
Taylor, J and Bell, M, 'Estimating intercensal Indigenous employment change,
1991-96', CAEPR Discussion Paper 155, CAEPR, Canberra, 1998.
68
Martin, D F, Morphy F, Sanders W G and Taylor J, Making Sense of the
Census: Observations of the 2001 Enumeration in Remote Aboriginal Australia,
CAEPR Research Monograph No. 22, CAEPR, Canberra, 2002.
69
Commonwealth Grants Commission, op cit.
70
Social Justice Report 2000, p102.
73
For example, the Report notes that mortality data are not reliable at
the ATSIC regional level and are only reliable at all in three States
- WA, SA and the NT.
74
See ATSIC Response to the CGC Report at www.atsic.gov.au.
75
Ruddock, P, Government to Focus on Indigenous Need, Media Release
and associated documents, 27 June 2002. See in particular the Government's
detailed Response to the Commonwealth Grants Commission 'Report on
Indigenous Funding 2001'.
77
Steering Committee for the Review of Commonwealth/State Service Provision,
Draft framework for reporting on Indigenous disadvantage.
80
Social Justice Report 2000, p107.
82
ATSIC, ATSIC News, Spring 2002, p44.
83
SBS Insight, The Pearson View, 22 March 2001.
84
Pearson, N, Our Right to take Responsibility, Noel Pearson and
Associates, Cairns, 2000, pp42-43.
85
See House of Representatives Committee on Aboriginal and Torres Strait
Islander Affairs, Inquiry into Capacity Building in Indigenous communities,
www.aph.gov.au/house/committee/atsia/indigenouscommunities/inqinde.htm
87
See http://www.capeyorkpartnerships.com/projects/index.htm.
88
Beattie, P, An Open Letter from Premier Beattie to the Indigenous Peoples
of Cape York, at www.capeyorkpartnerships.com/project/gov/index.htm
89
For an overview of the Harvard project see Chapter 2 of this Report or
visit: www.ksg.harvard.edu/hpaied/overview.htm
90
Department of Family and Community Services, Stronger Families and
Communities Strategy, see www.facs.gov.au
19
March 2003.