Complaints

Search

Social Justice Report 2004 : Media Pack

Social Justice Report 2004

Launch
Speech by Mr Tom Calma, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Justice
Commissioner

  • back to contents

    • I would like to begin by acknowledging the Gadigal people of the Eora nation, the traditional owners of the land where we meet.

    Thank you for joining me here this afternoon to launch the Social Justice Report 2004 and the Native Title Report 2004. Both reports were tabled in Parliament out of session last Friday.

    These are my first, annual reports to the federal Parliament as Social Justice Commissioner. They are released at a time of great change in Indigenous affairs, with the abolition of ATSIC and new whole of government initiatives.

    The reports set out how I will go about my role as the independent watchdog to monitor the performance of governments on Indigenous issues.

    In brief, the Social Justice Report:

    • Sets out how I will approach the role of Social Justice Commissioner, and indicates some of my key priorities over the coming years;
    • Offers a preliminary analysis of the new arrangements that have been put into place at the federal level for administering Indigenous affairs;
    • Sets out the relevant factors to be met to ensure that Shared Responsibility Agreements with Indigenous peoples and communities do not breach the Racial Discrimination Act; and
    • Provides an overview and analysis of the programs available for Indigenous women upon exiting prison.

    The Native Title Report:

    • sets out the findings of consultations conducted with native title representative bodies and other stakeholders that were held last year to promote the achievement of economic and social development through native title;
    • Sets out principles for promoting economic and social development through the native title system; and
    • Considers how the native title system might be better utilised to contribute to achieving Indigenous peoples" economic and social goals, including through a better alignment with the broader policy goals of governments, such as through the new arrangements and COAG trials.

    As I look around the room this afternoon I recognise many familiar faces. A number of you were here last August at a function held to welcome me into the role of Social Justice Commissioner.

    At that time, I indicated that I intended to approach the role of Social Justice Commissioner by:

    • maintaining a dialogue with governments about their performance on Indigenous issues; and
    • promoting greater awareness among Indigenous communities about their rights.

    In talking about what is contained in the Social Justice and Native Title reports, I am going to emphasise how my office is attempting to meet the challenges that such an approach creates.

    Since commencing as Commissioner, the key priority of my office has been to closely monitor the unrolling of the new arrangements that have been put into place at the federal level for administering Indigenous affairs.

    These new arrangements involve:

    • The abolition of the national elected representative Indigenous voice;
    • The creation of a central office to coordinate Indigenous policy;
    • The direct involvement of Ministers and Department secretaries across different areas of service delivery;
    • The establishment of regional coordination centres for the delivery of federal government services;
    • An emphasis on whole of government activity, with simplified processes for Indigenous people and communities to interact with the government; and
    • The negotiation of agreements at a regional level and at a community or sub-community level.

    This changed approach has only commenced just over nine months ago. Key aspects of it have only just been introduced or are still to be introduced.

    Because of this, the Social Justice Report notes that it is too preliminary to determine whether the new arrangements will be beneficial or detrimental to Indigenous peoples. But the report doesn"t leave it at that and let the government off the hook. Instead, it provides a detailed overview of the new processes and identifies the key challenges raised by them.

    In the second half of last year my office held consultations with Indigenous communities in several states and territories, with ATSIC Regional Councils and Commissioners. I also consulted with governments, staff in Indigenous Coordination Centres who would be implementing the changes and formally requested detailed written information from every Australian government department. This was to ensure that my office was across the processes for the introduction of these arrangements as well as being aware of the preliminary concerns and issues raised by people about them.

    Accordingly, the Social Justice Report identifies a number of challenges that the new arrangements raise, as well as some issues where I am concerned about the direction of the government. It places government on notice of how the new processes will be monitored over the coming eighteen months.

    As I have identified these issues, I have raised them with the government. And at this stage, most activity has been at the federal level and so my primary engagement has been at that level.

    I expect that this will change over the coming year, however, as the new processes spread across different levels of governments. A side comment that I would make at this stage is that there should be no doubt that these new arrangements will form the basis of most, if not all, service delivery at all levels of government over the coming years.

    The agreement of principles for service delivery to Indigenous people by COAG in June last year and the signing of the first bilateral agreement between the Northern Territory Government and the Commonwealth this month should be ample evidence of this.

    So we must make sure that we do not have our heads in the sand about these developments, as they are going ahead regardless. Indigenous people and communities need to learn about the new processes and think about how they can engage in them to address their needs.

    The new arrangements are underpinned by significant commitments to address Indigenous disadvantage. This is through the new Ministerial Taskforce"s 30 year vision for Indigenous affairs and at the level of the Council of Australian Governments, through the adoption of principles for service delivery.

    As I note in the Social Justice Report:

    • In theory, these new arrangements have much to commend them - the focus on coordinated service delivery and improved service delivery by mainstream agencies has been a longstanding problem. It was highlighted in the 2001 landmark report of the Commonwealth Grants Commission, for example.
    • There are also a number of potential benefits in the new arrangements. These include the movement to three year funding cycles - a simple recommendation of the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody that has taken nearly 15 years to be implemented - as well as the simplification of grant procedures with the proposal to introduce a single submission for the different programs that currently exist for Indigenous communities and groups.

    But, and this is the crucial point, the commitments made through these new arrangements need to translate into action on the ground. Indigenous people have suffered at the hands of good intentions and worthy commitments from governments of both persuasions for many decades. The Social Justice Report highlights those critical issues that must be properly addressed for the new arrangements to provide the potential benefits and not to repeat or make worse any mistakes of the past.

    Before considering what those challenges are, I want to step back from the detail for a moment and consider the challenges generally that the government has taken on with these new arrangements.

    It was almost 12 months to the day - on the 15 April last year - that the government announced its intention to abolish ATSIC and ATSIS and transfer programs to mainstream agencies.

    Less than three months after the announcement, over $1 billion worth of programs and 1300 staff were transferred from ATSIS and ATSIC to mainstream departments. Some departments found that not only did they now run Indigenous specific programs, but they also had staff located in regions and not in Canberra. These programs, along with all other relevant services, are required to be coordinated on a whole of government basis and through a regional approach. Service delivery approaches will also be set through agreement making processes, negotiated with Indigenous representative structures, that at the time of the announcement did not exist. The entire process would be monitored through processes that were also not finalised at this time.

    This description indicates the enormity of the task being undertaken. It will take several years for the new arrangements to be fully implemented and possibly even longer for Indigenous peoples to be empowered to be active and fully informed participants in the process.

    The speed with which the government has gone about this radical change is perhaps unprecedented in the Australian public service. There may be a reason for that. However, unprecedented in this context does not necessarily mean "good". One of my preliminary comments has been that these new arrangements could have benefited from a more carefully set out change management strategy and a more phased in introduction.

    I also note that key aspects of the new arrangements have been developed after the transition to them has begun. Put plainly, some changes are works in progress. Put bluntly, the government has developed and finessed them as they go.

    Perhaps the principle concern that I have expressed to government to date about the new arrangements has been that the haste has contributed to a lack of clarity about how the new processes will work. The processes seem clear at the top of the bureaucracy, but, as you get further down the chain and the further away from Canberra, the understanding that public servants have about the new processes become more blurred. There have also clearly been different understandings between different departments.

    I am pleased that the government has begun to acknowledge this. This is evidenced by the release by the Secretaries Group on Indigenous Affairs two weeks ago of a bulletin outlining key aspects of the new arrangements for all public servants.

    If public servants don"t have a clear understanding of the arrangements then it is harder to see how Indigenous people and communities will. Again, a key message I have given to government over the last nine months is that it is clear to me that communities do not understand these new arrangements sufficiently. Even now there remains a need to communicate information to Indigenous people better. A failure to do so could significantly undermine progress.

    Aside from these practical issues about the introduction of the new processes, the Social Justice Report also identifies a range of preliminary concerns.

    One is ensuring that we have a skilled public service that can interact appropriately with Indigenous people and communities. There are many dimensions to this issue - promoting recruitment and retention of Indigenous staff; cultural diversity and capacity development training; and valuing skills for engaging with Indigenous people.

    From August last year I have been raising these issues at the highest levels of the public services - personally with Dr Shergold and both the former and current Public Service Commissioners. I am pleased that the government has appointed Pat Turner to a newly created position in the Public Service Commission to address these issues on a service-wide basis.

    One aspect of this issue with which I remain deeply concerned, is the failure of some federal departments to use what are known as "identified selection criteria" in job selection processes or to use a downgraded version of these, as the Office of Indigenous Policy Coordination generally does. These criteria rate applicants in terms of their ability to communicate effectively with Indigenous peoples and to understand Indigenous cultures and societies. Surely these are central skills if the new arrangements are to succeed.

    Once again, I call on the government to ensure that they utilise these criteria as important or essential criteria for any selection process, but particularly for selections at the executive and senior executive levels. I will continue to monitor this and to put pressure on the Australian Public Service Commissioner to utilise their powers to monitor and promote awareness.

    The report also flags a number of issues which are of critical importance but on which the government is not sufficiently advanced to date. I have identified these as challenges for government, which I will be closely watching developments.

    When you see the report, you will note that it includes 10 "follow up actions" that my office will be taking over the next 12-18 months. These are issues on which I was not prepared to simply state "I will be watching closely" but on which I have explicitly identified how I will be monitoring the situation. This will form the basis of my ongoing dialogue with governments and Indigenous communities about the new arrangements.

    In broad terms, these challenges include, although they are not limited to, the following:

    • ensuring that Indigenous peoples are informed and empowered with the knowledge and skills to effectively and equitably participate in the SRA process;
    • ensuring that Indigenous people are able to participate fully in decision making, including through regional representative structures;
    • ensuring that we do not see the introduction of punitive funding models where communities are negotiating for the delivery of basic services and citizenship entitlements - and to this end I have provided a guide as to the relevant factors that must be met for the government to ensure that it complies with the Racial Discrimination Act; and
    • ensuring that appropriate performance monitoring and evaluation processes are put into place.

    Governments are on notice about these issues. They can expect to be closely scrutinised for how they perform, and for the next two Social Justice Reports, to detail how they have addressed these issues.

    Governments are, however, only one part of the picture. Indigenous people and communities are the other. I am looking to ways for Indigenous people to inform me of developments in their communities as these new arrangements come into place. One such process is that my office has prepared a community guide to the Social Justice Report and Native Title Report.

    Over 30,000 copies of it will be distributed nationally over the coming months. This includes through being placed in the National Indigenous Times and Koori Mail - so look out for it.

    Let me now turn to the rest of the Social Justice Report and the Native Title Report.

    The Social Justice Report also contains the findings of research on the support programs available to Indigenous women upon their release from prison.

    One of the main findings of this research is confirmation that an approach which assumes that the needs of Indigenous women will be met through services designed for Indigenous men, or those for women generally, will not work. The lack of attention to the distinct needs of Indigenous women marginalises them and entrenches inequalities in service delivery.

    The report identifies:

    • a lack of communication and coordination between prisons, community corrections, housing providers, government agencies and other community services prior to, and after the release, of an Indigenous woman from prison;
    • limited availability of pre-release support to prepare Indigenous women for their release from prison;
    • limited attention to post-release needs of Indigenous prisoners (male or female) within the main policies for addressing Indigenous peoples over-representation in the criminal justice system - such as Justice Agreements;
    • that access to appropriate and affordable accommodation and health services is critical to reintegration, post-release; and
    • Housing and healing as the critical issues to be addressed if an Indigenous woman exiting prison is to attend to other areas of her life.

    The report provides an overview of programs and policies of all governments relating to Indigenous women exiting prison, with a focus on housing and healing programs.

    Overall, it finds that there are some ground-breaking approaches being undertaken by some state governments and the community sector. However, the fact that there are only a handful of initiatives only serves to highlight how much more work there is to be done. The report calls for improved coordination of services within state and territory governments.

    It also calls for the convening of a National Roundtable to identify best practice examples of coordinating pre and post release support for Indigenous women exiting prison. I am pleased to say that consultations with government suggest that there is a very good chance that such a National Roundtable will take place in the coming months.

    The release of the Native Title Report is particularly timely given the current debates about alienability of Indigenous land and potential reform to the Northern Territory Aboriginal Land Rights Act.

    The central message in this report is that native title has been distanced from debates about addressing Indigenous disadvantage and has not been considered a tool for achieving economic prosperity. In order to shift the focus of native title to economic and social development outcomes, governments must develop a policy framework consistent with this goal.

    The Native Title Report notes that there are opportunities in the approach embodied in the new arrangements to extend the role of native title.

    What has emerged as a result of the Commonwealth's new arrangements are two structures for agreement making within Indigenous communities - native title agreement making and SRAs.

    The latter are based on the Council of Australian Governments (COAG) trials which emphasise improved service delivery; whole of government strategies; partnerships; flexibility; community governance and capacity building. These trials also aim to invest in community leadership; improve government service delivery and promote economic independence for Indigenous communities.

    Native title agreements focus on resolving legal issues; managing land use; and addressing compensation. But there is increasing recognition that native title agreements need to be more flexible to ensure practical and sustainable outcomes for all stakeholders.

    The Native Title Report argues that the new arrangements provide an opportunity to take a fresh look at the way in which native title policies and agreement making are structured, in order to deliver better economic and social outcomes for Indigenous peoples.

    There are opportunities to explore sustainable economic and social development goals within native title policies and agreements, consistent with the goals of COAG and the SRA agreement making process. The chapter suggests that failure to co-ordinate the goals of native title negotiations with these broader policies aimed at addressing the economic and social development of Indigenous people, not only limits the native title process; it also limits the capacity of the broader Indigenous policy to achieve its objectives.

    The long term goal of the new arrangements is for a community that is self reliant and sustainable and capable of directing its own economic and social development with the support of governments. Native title can potentially contribute to this process. It brings with it assets, governance structures, and cultural capital. It is an opportunity to build on what already belongs to Indigenous Australians - their traditional ownership of land. However, it needs to be recognised as a tool that can be usefully employed to help achieve the goals that are an urgent priority for the government in the Indigenous policy arena.

    The report sets out principles for promoting economic and social development through native title. I intend to further develop the principles and their application to the native title system through discussions with Commonwealth, State and Territory governments over the coming year.

    To conclude, these reports set out a clear vision for how I will approach the role of Social Justice Commissioner. They set out what my main focus will be for the coming years and puts Governments on notice that they have to get it right this time if we are to improve the life status and economic and social outcomes of Indigenous Australians, wherever we live. I anticipate that I will have a robust dialogue with them to ensure that the focus is on achieving the outcomes that Indigenous peoples want, rather than those that bureaucracies want. And I have attempted to create a solid basis for informing Indigenous peoples and communities about the role of my office and ways for them to let me know if the new arrangements are working or how they might be modified to enable them to work.

    Finally, I would like to acknowledge the efforts of my staff and all contributors who have made the Social Justice and Native title Reports 2004, possible. Thank you and I would be happy to respond to questions.