Site navigation

Change font size: SmallerLargerReload

Aboriginal & Torres Strait Islander Social Justice navigation

Social Justice Report 2002

  • back to contents

    • Chapter 4: Measuring Indigenous disadvantage

    Part 1: Benchmarking Indigenous disadvantage from a human rights perspective

    1. Background issues

    a) Indigenous disadvantage
    b) The recommendations of the Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation
    c) The Social Justice Reports for 2000 and 2001

    2. The Human Rights Context

    3. Integrating Human Rights and Development: UN experience

    a) UNDP Human Development Report 2000
    b) UNDP and UHCHR Draft Guidelines on Poverty Alleviation

    4. 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 level

    Part 2: Incorporating human rights into benchmarking reconciliation

    1) 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 Committee’s 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 Requirements for Accountability and Human Rights in Reconciliation [12]

    • Making an unqualified national commitment to redressing Indigenous disadvantage;

    • Facilitating the collection of sufficient data to support decision-making and reporting, and developing appropriate mechanisms for the independent monitoring and evaluation of progress towards redressing Indigenous disadvantage;

    • Adopting appropriate benchmarks to redress Indigenous disadvantage, negotiated with Indigenous peoples, state and territory governments and other service delivery agencies, with clear timeframes for achievement of both longer term and short-term goals;

    • Providing national leadership to facilitate increased coordination between governments, reduced duplication and overlap between services; and

    • ensuring the full participation of Indigenous organisations and communities in the design and delivery of services.

    Based on these five requirements, the Report contained fourteen detailed recommendations relating to:

    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:

    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:

    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:

    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:

    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:

    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:

    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 Indicators: 'Handle with care'

    Statistical indicators need to be:

    • Policy relevant: giving messages on issues that can be influenced, directly or indirectly, by policy action;

    • Reliable: enabling different people to use them and get consistent results;

    • Valid: based on identifiable criteria that measure what they are intended to measure;

    • Consistently measurable over time: necessary if they are to show whether progress is being made and targets are being achieved;

    • Possible to disaggregate: for focusing on social groups, minorities and individuals;

    • Designed to separate the monitor and the monitored where possible: minimising the conflicts of interest that arise when an actor monitors its own performance.

    The UNDP cautions that the powerful impact of statistics creates four caveats in their use:

    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; and

    g) 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:

    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]

    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:

    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:

    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:

    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:

    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:

    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:

    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:

    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

    Box 1: Draft framework for reporting on Indigenous disadvantage - strategic areas for action - Headline Indicators - Priority Outcomes

    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:

    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:

    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 2: Why not agency or program specific indicators?

    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.

    For example, in the 'strategic change area' of early school engagement and performance, improvements in the indicators - school attendance and year 3 literacy/numeracy - would require a range of intervention strategies across a number of government portfolios. For children to attend school regularly and achieve acceptable levels of literacy and numeracy, they will require good nutrition, for example, may involve the health, education and community services portfolios, to name a few.

    The separate annual Report on Government Services looks at the efficiency and effectiveness of individual services, including for Indigenous people.

    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:

    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:

    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:

    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:

    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

    8 ibid, p15.

    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.

    13 ibid, pp 130-132.

    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.

    17 ibid, pp 219-220.

    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.

    20 ibid, para 1.

    21 ibid, para 2.

    22 ibid, para 4.

    23 ibid, para 9.

    24 ibid, para 10.

    25 CESCR, General Comment 4: The Right to adequate housing, Contained in UN Doc: E/1992/23, 13/12/91.

    26 ibid, para 1.

    27 ibid, para 7.

    28 ibid, para 8(g).

    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.

    33 ibid, para 27.

    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.

    37 ibid, p108.

    38 ibid, p49.

    39 ibid, p90.

    40 High Commissioner for Human Rights and UNDP, Draft Guidelines on Poverty Alleviation, op cit, para 1.

    41 ibid, para 18.

    42 ibid, para 24.

    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.

    45 ATSIC, op cit, para 1.8.

    46 ibid.

    47 ibid.

    48 ibid, p7.

    49 See Rowse, T, op cit, p8.

    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.

    52 ibid, p20.

    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.

    71 CGC, op cit, ppxviii-xix.

    72 ibid, pp14-15.

    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'.

    76 ibid.

    77 Steering Committee for the Review of Commonwealth/State Service Provision, Draft framework for reporting on Indigenous disadvantage.

    78 ibid, p4.

    79 ibid, p9.

    80 Social Justice Report 2000, p107.

    81 ibid.

    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

    86 www.indigenous.qld.gov.au

    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

    91 CGC, op cit.

    19 March 2003.