Social Justice Report 2003: SUMMARY SHEET FOUR: INDIGENOUS PARTICIPATION IN DECISION MAKING
Media Pack:
SUMMARY SHEET FOUR: INDIGENOUS PARTICIPATION IN DECISION MAKING
There has been increased attention over
the past year to the nature of the relationship between government and
Indigenous peoples. There has been a lot of talk from governments about
the need to change the way they interact with and provide services to
Indigenous peoples and communities. This has largely occurred as a result
of the significant policy focus of Indigenous peoples and governments
on capacity building and governance reform in recent years, and progress
in 2003 in advancing the whole-of-government community trials by the Council
of Australian Governments.
Debates during the year about the relationship of Indigenous
peoples and government have identified three key, inter-connected, issues.
First, the need to change the way government interacts with Indigenous
peoples. For governments, the emphasis here has been on the need to change
the way services are provided to Indigenous peoples, including through
improved coordination between governments and among government agencies.
Second, the need to build the capacity of Indigenous communities, coupled
with demands for improved corporate governance among Indigenous organisations.
Third, the need to review the structures and operations of ATSIC, such
as through introducing improved corporate governance mechanisms and by
making ATSIC more representative and participatory (see further
summary sheet 5). There are, however, differences on how to best
address these issues.
Indigenous peoples seek to challenge the underlying basis of
their relationship to governments in Australia. Indigenous peoples have
increasingly come to realise that the current system perpetuates a cycle
of dependency and is also not contributing to or promoting sustainable
improvements in Indigenous communities and individual well-being.
'Concerns about dependency on permanent government service
delivery are accompanied by concerns that this service delivery model
is not delivering long term and sustainable improvements in Indigenous
communities. The current approach reduces the idea of development 'to
one of 'community development' devoid of any economic dimension' and provides
'little encouragement to Indigenous economic development since the resourcing
of Indigenous organisations does not increase with increases in economic
activity in their local area'. Service delivery of itself brings few economic
benefits' (p61).
Overall, it requires two main but inter-related changes. First,
it requires changes to the approach of government to funding in order
to increase Indigenous participation and control. Second, it raises challenges
for Indigenous people to develop structures that are capable of interacting
with governments while also being representative of and accountable back
to Indigenous communities and people. This requires building the capacity
of Indigenous communities to be self-determining as well as reforming
the structures of ATSIC to provide effective representation within government
at the regional, state and national levels.
The report identifies four main features of the developments over the
past few years relating to capacity building and governance reform:
the identification of significant capacity in Indigenous communities;
the importance of capacity building in building a more effective service
delivery framework ; the importance of corporate governance standards;
and definitions of capacity building.
The Commission recommends the adoption of the ATSIC Framework
which has three levels of interventions for capacity development - the
community level; Indigenous organisations; and government level (including
ATSIC). There are different approaches needed for each level (pp
86-88). The report recommends that this framework be adopted
by COAG as part of its reconciliation framework.
'Overall . . . there have been significant advances in the
past three years in relation to capacity building initiatives. There is
a broader acceptance of the need for capacity building and governance
reform within Indigenous communities and to changing the way that governments
go about delivering services. There is also a broader acknowledgement
of the breadth of initiatives currently underway to address the overall
circumstances of Indigenous peoples. This is let down, however, by the
lack of a consistent understanding of what capacity building entails which
promotes a more limited focus purely on the operations of existing service
delivery mechanisms.
'The proposal of an integrated capacity development
approach by ATSIC demonstrates the potential for transforming the
relationship of Indigenous peoples and government through a focus on governance
reform and capacity building. It provides a holistic, whole-of-government
approach that serves as an agenda for change. The adoption of this framework
would not only provide a long term framework and vision for improving
Indigenous well-being, it would also ensure that all governments proceed
in addressing capacity development issues with a consistent understanding
of the goals and objectives of such a process. Many current initiatives
of governments - such as the COAG whole-of-government trials, proposals
to reform corporate governance standards relating to Indigenous corporations,
and agreement making with ATSIC - fit within or is consistent with this
integrated framework' (p88).