Site navigation

Change font size: SmallerLargerReload

About the Australian Human Rights Commission navigation

National Press Club Address

By Tom Calma

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Justice Commissioner, Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission

Wednesday, 4 July 2007

I would like to begin by acknowledging all the traditional owners of the land where we meet, the Ngunawal Ngambri people. Thank you Matilda House for your welcome and for joining us here today.

It is a pleasure to jointly address the Press Club with Fred Chaney from Reconciliation Australia. The Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission and Reconciliation Australia have a history of working in partnership together. There is a lot in common in the work of our two organisations – particularly as we promote a learning framework for policy development, and genuine engagement with Indigenous peoples. So it is a pleasure Fred.

We are here to discuss some hard issues – perhaps the hardest issues that any society can face.

I stand before you today – not the favourite person in some people’s books. But this won’t hold me back for one moment from directly raising a few difficult home truths.

Less than a fortnight ago, the Indigenous Affairs Minister put out a press release saying that he was disappointed in my latest report to Parliament, the 2006 Social Justice Report. The Minister thought the report was ‘unhelpful’, and that I was missing the real outcomes being achieved in Indigenous affairs – “the foundations that are being laid for the future”, as he called them. I was also accused of taking a ‘glass half empty’ perspective.

Since the abolition of ATSIC in June 2005, I’ve become the only independent statutory watchdog on Indigenous affairs in Australia.

I was appointed the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Justice Commissioner for the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission in July 2004 so I have witnessed and commentated on the roll out of the ‘new arrangements’ in Indigenous affairs.

No-one can deny that the three years since have been a roller-coaster ride, so we must spare some thoughts on what the impacts have been on Indigenous peoples.

Mr Brough is a committed Minister, determined to leave a legacy - no doubt like many before him. And anyone listening to the Minister can hardly doubt his zeal and good intent. And I am also certain that the Prime Minister is absolutely genuine with the concern and very public emotion that he’s displayed in the past few weeks over the latest evidence of child sexual abuse in Aboriginal communities in the Northern Territory.

The commitment and passion of those two men is not at issue here - and it’s not what I want to reflect on today.

Every year - in accordance with the requirements of the Native Title Act 1993 and the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Act 1986 – I supply Federal Parliament with two reports.

When my latest Social Justice Report was tabled in the Federal Parliament a couple of weeks ago, I was meticulously honest. I have to be, it’s what I get paid for - to monitor the impact of government policy on the human rights of Indigenous Australians.

My report found that when you look at the rhetoric of the government closely, there are major discrepancies between what’s been promised and what’s been delivered.

I reported it was clear that there are serious problems with the new ‘whole-of-government’ arrangements in Indigenous affairs.

The report documented the broad government commitments to overcoming Indigenous disadvantage – which are by and large struggling because of a lack of strategic focus detailing how the difficult and important jobs are to be done.

And I reported that the most significant problem with the government’s approach is the lack of capacity for engagement and participation of Indigenous peoples. This manifests as a lack of connection between the local and regional level, up to the state and national level; and as a disconnect between the making of policy; and its implementation.

As I put it simply ...

The outcome is bad policy that lacks an evidence base. It is also not meeting standards set out by the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet on policy implementation and released in late 2006 (in partnership with the Australian National Audit Office).

You can see why Minister Brough was ‘disappointed’ with my report!

The irony – if not the tragedy – is that in 2007-08, the Australian Government will commit a record $3.5 billion on programmes and services to address Indigenous disadvantage. It sounds like the money is pouring in – but it troubles me that I can’t honestly tell you that it’s being well targeted or spent. We simply don’t know, because there are insufficient mechanisms for evaluating current programs, there’s little transparency, and even less engagement with local communities.

As I said when releasing the report:

Current federal Government policy treats Indigenous people as 'problems to be solved' rather than as active partners in creating a positive life vision for our communities.

This is an incredibly disappointing thing to have to say in 2007. We don’t need to re-invent the wheel - simply know our history. Development and human rights experience, both in this country and worldwide, shows that unless those people most affected by policy are most involved, those policies will not succeed.

You’ll find a classic example in the Pitjantjatjara lands of South Australia on how community participation and ownership can achieve results. The ‘APY lands’ as they are also known, have had their fair share of trouble and bad news headlines in recent years - the most obvious symptoms of dysfunction being grog and petrol sniffing. I was there in 2003 when the Government signed off on the first Council of Australian Governments (COAG) trial. It was a pleasure to go back only last week with Health Minister Tony Abbott and find such dramatic improvements in governance, community infrastructure and general sense of well-being.

It’s impossible to underestimate how important the almost total elimination of petrol sniffing in the APY lands has been. And it’s happened as the direct result of the introduction of lead-free OPAL fuel.

Now that was something driven by those communities - as traumatised and decimated as they were. They were prepared to own the problem - they simply needed help in dealing with the outside forces that were causing it. In the end, they almost begged for a ban on sniffable fuel - at a time when all governments thought that would either be too hard or too expensive. But the community knew what it needed. Now everyone is benefiting from this most sensible partnership.

Of course, the APY lands are also ‘dry’ communities – once again, a decision taken and completely ‘owned’ by the people themselves.

I advocate for individuals and communities taking responsibility. And I recognise that responsibility is a learned behaviour, and it must be embraced, nurtured and developed. Responsibility is rarely achieved by being imposed.

And this leads me to family violence and abuse. There’s never an excuse for any sort of abuse, and there never has been. It is not part of our culture, and never was.

Confronting abuse should lead to a commitment to principled engagement with Indigenous peoples so that we are recognised as active participants and agents of change for our own futures and for those of our children.

Much has been written in recent weeks about the ‘rivers of grog’ that seem to underpin much of the family violence, neglect and dysfunction that we’re now hearing about. We can’t kid ourselves that simply closing the canteens or banning grog is going to fix the underlying problems of addiction or make people ‘responsible’.

In all of this, it’s the education and empowerment of peoples, the follow-up and the support that is all-important.

When I worked at ATSIS in 2003, I managed a program that was called Community Participation Agreements. It was only a small program, but it was driven by Indigenous people who didn’t want to get “sit down money” any more. They wanted to be active. They certainly didn’t want to be painting rocks white – they wanted to do meaningful activities that would benefit themselves or their community.

Sadly, when we were starting to see results, the CPA program was axed. It only saved about $11 million – but it lost Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders a heck of a lot of responsibility and empowerment potential.

In some way, those agreements were the precursor of what are now called SRAs, or Shared Responsibility Agreements.

I’ve said that the SRA process offers some glimmers of hope. For my 2006 report, we conducted a survey of communities that had entered into these agreements – and most Aboriginal people were generally positive about the process.

However, community confidence and satisfaction in the SRA process was limited by the short-term nature of the funding, disproportionate accountability requirements, lack of flexibility once the agreement was signed – and, indeed, the communities own high expectations of what those agreements could deliver and how they should be part of an enduring, long-term development strategy.

Many saw the SRA process as a way to change their relationship with government - to one that is based on addressing their needs and building their capacity to address ongoing problems.

However, many communities have been left disappointed with the government not matching those expectations. It’s a warning bell for the future that we ignore at our peril.

In Sydney yesterday, I launched my latest reports to Parliament. I focused significantly on the NT situation and examined the connections between the policy failures that are central to the government’s current approach to Indigenous issues and the announced measures.

Some of the questions I raised yesterday about how the government will achieve its objectives in the Northern Territory included:


There are serious policy issues raised by each of these questions. And many go to the capacity of government – especially within a system for delivering services that is problematic.

These are hard debates that we must have to make the government’s commitments work into the long term.

I firmly believe that the government’s announcement provides a historic opportunity, one that arguably only comes along once in a generation of political and public policy debate.

We must applaud the Prime Minister, Minister Brough, and the Opposition Leader for the coming together of political concern. After decades of pain and the ignored cries from our people – the very ones being hurt - the issue is finally, firmly on the political radar and on the front pages. And it must stay there.

What I am urging is for us to learn the lessons of past mistakes and learn the lessons from successes. We are not starting from scratch here.

Frankly, we are kidding ourselves if we cannot see that there is a connection between the problems of the existing policy approach to Indigenous affairs – avoidable, fixable problems I might add – and the proposed approach in the NT.

Even now, there are some lessons for us in the ashes of ATSIC that can help us find a way forward.

For example, in 2003 ATSIC developed a family violence strategy, with a series of primary actions to be implemented, all mapped out at a regional level. It was a far-sighted, practical piece of policy planning – and in the rush to yet another policy revolution, it’s been consigned to the dustbin.

For a long time now the various state, federal and territory health departments have also developed a series of regional health planning forums under the National Indigenous Health Strategy. There are also ATSIC regional plans, and similar plans for housing and criminal justice at the state level.

So much of the planning has already been done. It now requires resources and the commitment to action.

Announcing the ‘national emergency response’ to child sexual abuse in the Northern Territory two weeks ago, the Prime Minister estimated that the cost would be “some tens of millions” of dollars. He later confirmed that “the full power and resources of the Commonwealth will be directed to making lasting change.” These commitments are welcomed.

But let us remember that this not just about child sexual abuse.

It’s about addressing the full range of issues that manifest and contribute to abuse. It’s about addressing broader health issues like closing the 17-year life expectancy gap between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians. It’s about educating people about their rights and their responsibilities that go hand in hand with those rights. It’s about creating and providing life opportunities, and as Fred has indicated, it’s about partnerships and meaningful engagement with those most affected. It must be a holistic and comprehensive partnership that is in place for as long as it takes to address the inequalities.

I will simply say that unless all governments understand that this national crisis is a long-term catch-up commitment that is going to cost the nation. We will in ten or twenty years time be dealing with the same dreadful intertwined issues, and the same shocked and appalled headlines.

The complex issues being tackled and the proposed measures to be taken in the Northern Territory also raise a host of fundamental human rights principles. It is of the utmost importance to Australia’s international reputation, and for community respect for our system of government, that solutions to all aspects of these matters respect the human rights and freedoms of everyone involved.

These rights are clearly spelt out in international Conventions (such as the Convention on the Rights of the Child, the Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women and the Convention on the Elimination of all forms of Racial Discrimination), to which Australia is a party.

HREOC and I will continue to work constructively with governments, Indigenous communities and the broader Australian public to help ensure that the proposed measures are consistent with Australia’s human rights obligations.

That the conditions of life for Aboriginal people have languished so terribly and for so long is a cause of national shame. But with real long-term commitment and the resources and finances to match, we can turn this situation around and have a nation and peoples who are proud of what they have achieved together - now and into the future.

It will take leadership, bipartisanship and determined, collaborative action and honest, open conversations to keep the commitments and responses on track. And I intend to play my part in achieving this.

Thank you.