Skip to main content

Benchmarking Reconciliation And Human Rights - Attachment B

Attachment B: Benchmarking Reconciliation and Human Rights

Issues Paper prepared for Sydney Workshop

Sydney 28-29 November 2002


Click here for:

 


CONTENTS

1. Introduction

2. The Human Rights Context

3. Integrating Human Rights and Development

4. Research relevant to Benchmarking

5. Commonwealth Grants Commission

6. Australian Bureau of Statistics

7. Government Response to the Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation

8. Further developments in progressing Benchmarking

9. Governance and Capacity building

10. Developments at State and Territory level

11. Issues and Questions


1. Introduction

Indigenous disadvantage

Indigenous Australians are significantly disadvantaged in contemporary Australian society, including in socio-economic terms. This disadvantage represents a failure to provide in full measure the human rights to which Australian Indigenous people 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. [1] 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 people, particularly in remote areas, has not only not improved, but that it has in some respects actually worsened. [2]

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. [3]

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… the fragmentary and incomplete nature of existing studies leaves policy makers without direction in attempting to deal with entrenched indigenous poverty. [4]

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. [5] Rather, the reason for the high numbers of Aboriginal deaths in custody was that the Aboriginal population was over represented in custody: "Too many Aboriginal people are in custody too often". [6] 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. [7]

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 people. 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 organizations to determine their own priorities for funding allocations, and that such organizations should, as a matter of preference be the vehicles through which programs are delivered. [8]

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. [9]

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 people 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.

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. [10] The Report made six recommendations focusing on processes and accountability in the context of reconciliation. The first of these recommendations dealt directly with addressing disadvantage:

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 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 organizations 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 organizations and communities will need to be effective partners in the process if it is to work and have meaning. The role of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Justice Commissioner in particular provides a follow-on to the work of CAR.

The Office of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Justice Commissioner

In his Social Justice Report for 2000, the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Justice Commissioner, Dr Bill Jonas, noted the defining feature of the past year as the focus on reconciliation, including the presentation of the reconciliation documents by CAR. He also noted the differing views that had emerged around the nature of reconciliation, in particular differences over the role of human rights in the reconciliation process. Dr Jonas observed that "[T]here has been a worrying trend to de-legitimise a human rights discourse". [11] In the context of the winding up of the CAR, the Social Justice Commissioner stated that the Human Rights and Equal Opportunities Commission (HREOC) would continue to support the reconciliation process and that, in particular, he would consider progress in addressing the human rights dimensions of Reconciliation in his next report for 2001. [12]

Chapter 4 of the 2000 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:


Five Requirements for Accountability and Human Rights in Reconciliation [13]
  • 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 organizations and communities in the design and delivery of services.

Based on these five requirements, the Commissioner made fourteen detailed recommendations covering

  • national commitments to overcome Indigenous disadvantage;
  • improved data collection;
  • monitoring and evaluation mechanisms;
  • negotiating with Indigenous peoples; and
  • protecting human rights. [14]

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. [15]

The Social Justice Report 2001 [16] noted, notwithstanding COAG agreeing to a communiqué on reconciliation in 2000 [17] 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. [18]

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 two further recommendations, [19] namely:

The Senate empower the Legal and Constitutional References Committee to conduct an inquiry into the implementation and response to the reconciliation process. The terms of reference of the inquiry should require the Committee to examine the recommendations contained within the Roadmap to Reconciliation, the final report of the Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation and the Social Justice Report 2000 as well as the adequacy of the response of the Federal Government to each of these. In determining the adequacy of the response, the Committee should be required to consider processes by which government agencies have reviewed their policies and programs against the documents of reconciliation, as well as the adequacy of targets and benchmarks adopted and monitoring and evaluation mechanisms (Recommendation 11); and

At the time of tabling of the annual Social Justice Report in Parliament, or within 15 sitting days, the Government furnish a response to the report and its recommendations in Parliament. In the event that the Government does not furnish such a response in Parliament, the Senate consider the establishment of a parliamentary inquiry to consider matters that appear in or arise out of the report and its recommendations, and matters to which the Committee believes Parliament's attention should be directed (Recommendation 12).

Senate Inquiry

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, inter alia, to inquire into:

  • progress towards national reconciliation, including an examination of the adequacy and effectiveness of the Commonwealth Government's response to the reconciliation documents cited in the Social Justice Commissioner's 2001 recommendation; and
  • the adequacy and effectiveness of any targets, benchmarks, monitoring and evaluation mechanisms that have been put in place…consistent with the reconciliation documents. [20]

2. The Human Rights Context

The Social Justice Report 2000 sets out four basic human rights principles as the necessary basis the realization of reconciliation. They are:

  • no discrimination, that is, a guarantee of equal treatment and protection for all. Equal protection includes recognition of distinct cultural characteristics of particular racial groups (substantive equality), and can require temporary special measures of assistance to overcome inequalities;
  • progressive realization, that is the commitment of sufficient resources through well targeted programs to ensure adequate progress in the realization of rights over time;
  • Effective participation, that is ensuring that individuals and communities are adequately involved in decisions that affect their well being, including the design and delivery of programs
  • Effective remedies, that is the provision of mechanisms for redress when human rights are violated.

These four principles are more than a statement of objectives or goals to be met as and when governments feel it is appropriate or practical to do so. Rather, they are a distillation of the human rights principles and norms which make up the international law of human rights. They are contained in various international instruments to which Australia is party and which consequently are binding on Australia. And while the particular application of these norms may take account of local circumstances and the constraints that may exist, there is no discretion as to whether these norms are to be applied to the fullest extent possible. This is an obligation of international law, and a nation fails to meet these obligations at the peril of its international reputation and standing. The process of reconciliation should be seen as part of the realization 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.

International human rights standards in respect of economic, social and cultural rights

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 people 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 realization of these rights.

The International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR)

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 realization of the rights recognized in the present Covenant by all appropriate means.." (emphasis added)

This provision is further elaborated by CESCR's General Comment 3. [21] Noting that this provision is controlling in respect of all the other provisions of the Covenant, [22] the Committee states that while the obligation "to take steps" means that the full realization 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 recognized in the Covenant. [23] 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. [24]

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 realized over time, or in other words progressively, there is nevertheless an obligation to move as expeditiously and effectively as possible. [25] 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. [26] 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. 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: [27]

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. [28]

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". [29]

The relevance of this approach to the range of circumstances of Indigenous people 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 modernization 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. [30]

This discussion is clearly relevant to the provision of adequate and appropriate housing for Indigenous people in Australia, a major area of their disadvantage. For example, the CESCR formulation can provide a framework for the provision of housing on outstations which both meets equality objectives and recognizes 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. [31]

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). [32] 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. [33] 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. [34]

Of particular note is the inclusion of a paragraph specifically relating this right to Indigenous peoples. [35] The paragraph emphasizes 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.

Summary - ICESCR

The 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 realization of rights as effectively and expeditiously as possible. States are required to take steps that are deliberate, concrete and targeted. An integral part of the obligations assumed by States in ratifying the Covenant is to develop strategies, identify indicators and determine benchmarks. This approach is now an integral feature of the international human rights regime, applying equally to economic, social and cultural rights as to other rights. But, going beyond the prescriptive framework of the Covenant and the other human rights treaties, the treaty bodies charged with monitoring their implementation have undertaken the task in a manner designed to cooperate with and assist States in achieving human rights. International instruments such as ICESCR now represent a considerable body of experience and expertise, built up over the last 30 years or so.

In approaching these issues in Australia, it is unhelpful to dispute or ignore this experience. The development of policies to address Indigenous disadvantage is best done in full cognizance of Australia's international human rights obligations, and within the framework for the realisation of those rights that has been developed within the UN. The integration of human rights principles into the design and delivery of programs and technical assistance for poverty eradication is the next generation of the development of human rights, and is presently under active development in the UN system.

3. Integrating Human Rights and Development: UN experience

Over the last five years a major goal of the UN has been to integrate human rights principles into the whole of the Organisation's work, including the overarching development goal of poverty eradication. These developments are reflected in:

  • United Nations Development Program (UNDP) Human Development Report 2000; [36] and
  • Office of UN High Commission on Human Rights (OHCHR)/UNDP Draft Guidelines on Poverty Alleviation. [37]

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. The report can be viewed online or downloaded at: http://hdr.undp.org/reports/global/2000/en/. [38]

UNDP Human Development Report 2000.

The Human Development Report 2000 had as its theme 'Human Rights and Human Development'. This landmark publication for the UN system emphasised the mutually reinforcing relationship between human rights and human development, and highlighted the need for innovative thinking, strategic planning and cultivating new partnerships in integrating human rights considerations into program formulation and implementation.

Chapter 5 of the Report, Using indicators for human rights accountability, examines the importance statistical indicators as powerful tools in the struggle for human rights. The Report argues that developing and using indicators has become a cutting-edge area of advocacy. In this context, the Report notes the importance of developing indicators for:

  • Making better policies and monitoring progress;
  • Identifying unintended impacts of laws, policies and practices;
  • Identifying which actors are having an impact on the realization of rights;
  • Revealing whether the obligations of these actors are being met;
  • Giving early warning of potential violations, prompting preventative action;
  • Enhancing social consensus on difficult trade-offs to be made in the face of resource constraints; and
  • Exposing issues that have been neglected or silenced.

While statistics alone cannot measure the full dimension of rights, they can 'open the questions behind the generalities and help reveal the broader social challenges'. [39] 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 realization of human rights. UNDP suggests that statistics must address the following three perspectives, simultaneously:

  • An average perspective: What is the overall progress in the country, and how has it changed over time?
  • A deprivation perspective: Who are the most deprived groups in society, disaggregated by income; gender; region; rural or remote location; ethnic group; or education level. How have the most deprived groups progressed over time?
  • An inequality perspective: Measuring the disparity between various groups in society, and whether these disparities have widened or narrowed over time. [40]

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 realization. States should identify appropriate indicators, in relation to which they should set ambitious but achievable benchmarks (ie intermediate targets) corresponding to each ultimate target, so that the rate of progress can be monitored and, if progress is slow, corrective action taken. Thus, indicators measure progress towards both intermediate and ultimate targets. Setting benchmarks enables government and other parties to reach agreement about what rate of progress would be adequate. The stronger is the basis of national dialogue, the more national commitment there will be to the benchmark. The need for debate and widely available public information is clear. If benchmarks are to be a tool of accountability, not just the rhetoric of empty promises, they must be, according to UNDP:

  • Specific, time bound and verifiable;
  • Set with the participation of the people whose rights are affected, to agree on what is an adequate rate of progress and to prevent the target from being set too low;
  • Reassessed independently at their target date, with accountability for performance. [41]

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: [42]


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:

    minimizing the conflicts of interest that arise when an actor monitors its own performance.

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

  • Overuse:



    Statistics alone cannot capture the full picture of rights and should not be the only focus of assessment. All statistical analysis needs to be embedded in an interpretation drawing on broader political, social and contextual analysis

     
  • Underuse:



    Data are rarely voluntarily collected on issues that are incriminating, embarrassing or simply ignored. Even when data are collected, they may not be made public for many years.

     
  • Misuse:



    Data collection is often biased towards institutions and formalized reporting, towards events that occur, not events prevented or suppressed. But lack of data does not always mean fewer occurrences.

     
  • Political abuse:



    Indicators can be manipulated for political purposes to discredit certain countries or actors.

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'. [43] 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. [44]

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. [45]

The guidelines provide a comprehensive document. They are divided into three sections. Section sets out basic principles. Section identifies, for each of the rights relevant to poverty reduction (health, housing, education etc), the major elements of a strategy for realizing that right. Section explains how the human rights approach can guide the monitoring and accountability aspects of poverty reduction strategies. Because of its special significance, accountability is singled out for discussion in a separate section.

Particular guidelines that spell out in detail issues of accountability and, while not always completely relevant to the Australian situation, do provide a good deal of potentially useful information, include:

  • Guideline 4: Progressive Realisation of Human Rights: Indicators and Benchmarks;
  • Guideline 16: Principles of Monitoring and Accountability; and
  • Guideline 17: Monitoring and Accountability of States

The Guidelines can be viewed online or downloaded at: www.unhchr.ch/development/povertyfinal.html.

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. [46]

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). CAEPR is a multi-disciplinary social sciences research centre at the Australian National University (ANU), with a primary focus on Indigenous Australian economic policy and development issues, including native title and land rights, social justice, and the socio-economic status of Indigenous Australians. As the Director of CAEPR, Professor Jon Altman, has described it: 'CAEPR's economic policy orientation has been its primary lens, leading to the focus on labour markets, welfare and development issues'. [47]

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 summarized under the following headings: [48]

  • Dispossession:

    Prior to British occupation, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples 'developed a mosaic of communities and groups with rich and enduring cultures centred on an intimate relationship with the land and sea… Dispossession and dispersal have destroyed much of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander societies… [and] many Indigenous communities and individuals have little or no stake in the economic life of the nation other than what Governments may provide' [49]
  • Exclusion from mainstream services:

    Up until the late 1960's, many Indigenous Australians were excluded from mainstream services, creating 'a significant legacy of inequality in areas such as education, health, housing and infrastructure' [50]
  • Recent inclusion:

    In combination with exclusion from services such as education, access to welfare has 'unintentionally, and paradoxically, created poverty traps from which it is hard to escape' [51]
  • Past and inter-generational poverty:

    Low income has prevented the accumulation of capital and investment, leading to inter-generational poverty
  • Location in rural and remote areas:

    A higher proportion of the Indigenous population lives in rural and remote areas where there are few economic opportunities and service delivery is disproportionately expensive; and
  • Demography:

    The large and multi-generational nature of Indigenous households creates dependency ratios and a higher economic burden than in non-Indigenous families. Similarly, the Indigenous population's structure is more akin to that of a developing nation, with population growth outstripping that of the general Australian population, and with a young age structure.

Each of these factors has implications in developing policy and programs to address Indigenous disadvantage, and in identifying indicators, setting targets and providing benchmarks. Consequently, as the CAR/CAEPR paper noted, there are:

problems of seeking statistical equity without recognising the deep-rooted structural causes of the low socio-economic status of Indigenous Australians and without basing targets on accurate demographic data… applying the principle of equality and setting statistical targets must be both geographically and culturally informed…

Governments need to be realistic about what can be achieved, in light of the highly intractable nature of the problem, and careful in their use of statistics… There is a very real danger that perceptions of continued policy and program failure can do considerable harm to the argument for proactive government programs to address Indigenous needs. [52]

A further difficulty, illustrated by CAEPR research, is that of interpreting statistics relating to program outcomes while recognizing, 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. [53] That is to say, Indigenous people 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. [54] 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. [55] 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. [56]

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 point has also been made by the Social Justice Commissioner, who notes that '[T]he targets should be culturally appropriate'. [57] He notes that the CAR 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. [58]

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. [59] Instead, some of the specific issues concerning monitoring and evaluation that have emerged in the course of CAEPR research are noted. These are:

Disaggregation:

It has become clear in a number of contexts that national figures do not reveal sufficient information and the averages or rates calculated on a national basis may be misleading. Taylor has noted that the success or failure of policy should be measured 'in a manner that reflects…regional priorities, the variability of participation in formal and informal economies, and the restricted options in many remote locations'. [60] Policy evaluations demand attention to the particularities of regions and to evaluate employment outcomes the markets need to be differentiated. [61] Also noting the need for disaggregation in some circumstances, the OHCHR/UNDP Draft Guidelines on Poverty Alleviation note the need to specify groups by geographic location, gender, age etc 'so that the problem of poverty can be addressed at as disaggregated a level as possible.' [62]

Rates and size of the base population:

CAEPR researchers have pointed out that any consideration of the rates of employment, unemployment and labour force participation should take into account the size of the base population. Taylor and Altman projected the rapid growth of the working age Indigenous population. [63] Against this expansion in the base, the task of achieving improvements in rates of employment, or even holding the line, could be seen to be great. Taylor and Hunter observed that it would be difficult in these circumstances to prevent Indigenous labour force status from slipping. Indeed. they noted that:

to move beyond this, and attempt to close the gap between Indigenous and other Australians, will require an absolute and relative expansion in Indigenous employment that is without precedent. [64]

Definition of poverty

Hunter has pointed out that the conceptual problems of measuring indigenous poverty include the role of non-market work (for example subsistence hunting and gathering), family size and composition, relative prices and the geographic distribution of the population. As well as income, people need access to adequate health care, housing and justice. He argues that it is inappropriate to focus solely on income as the measure of poverty, and that Indigenous poverty is in fact multi-faceted. [65]

Hunter, Kennedy and Biddle note that an important issue is for researchers to ensure that the assumptions made in measuring poverty are transparent and can be evaluated by commentators contributing directly to the policy debate. [66] Their paper attempts to illustrate how the composition of the poor changes with small variations in seemingly innocuous assumptions. The only point of agreement in the poverty literature is that people who live in poverty must live in a state of deprivation, a state in which their standard of living falls below some minimum acceptable level. However, the way in which poverty has been defined and measured provokes a multitude of questions, for example, which is the best group among whom to assume income is shared-the nuclear family, the extended family or the household?

Relationship between variables: education employment and income.

Anne Daly found that even when Aborigines were equal in education to non-Aborigines they were less likely to have a job. [67] Gray, Hunter and Schwab hypothesized that it is not absolute improvement in Indigenous educational attainment that matters, but relative improvement as against other Australians. [68]

Schwab questioned whether 'equity' in participation and outcome (with non-Indigenous Australians) should be the aim of policy. Statistical equality was likely to remain elusive, and could obscure important differences of need. [69]

Problems of defining and enumerating the Indigenous population:

Without a defined Indigenous population it is not possible to evaluate the impact, over time, of government programs to address Indigenous disadvantage. Difficulties with Census data have been considered by CAEPR researchers including Gray, [70] and Taylor and Bell. [71]

Based on observations in remote and fringe communities, Martin, Morphy and Taylor have made recommendations for changes in the special enumeration procedures for Indigenous Australians which are part of Census procedures. [72]

Summary: CAEPR

This brief sampling of work of CAEPR illustrates the relevance of this body of research to the project of benchmarking reconciliation. CAEPR research in a number of socio-economic areas of Indigenous life, and in questions of enumeration of the Indigenous population on a national and regional level, provides detailed information and analysis that can inform the development of indicators and benchmarks, their interpretation and their implications for policy deliberations.

5. Commonwealth Grants Commission

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. [73] 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. [74]

The Report noted that, given the entrenched levels of disadvantage experienced by Indigenous people 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 people. This also meant that specific programs for Indigenous people 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 people.

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: [75]

(i) the full and effective participation of Indigenous people in decisions affecting funding distribution and service delivery;

(ii) a focus on outcomes;

(iii) ensuring a long term perspective to the design and implementation of programs and services, thus providing a secure context for setting goals;

(iv) ensuring genuine collaborative processes with the involvement of government and non-government funders and service deliverers, to maximise opportunities for pooling of funds, as well as multi-jurisdictional and cross-functional approaches to service delivery;

(v) recognition of the critical importance of effective access to mainstream programs and services, and clear actions to identify and address barriers to access;

(vi) improving the collection and availability of data to support informed decision making, monitoring of achievements and program evaluation; and

(vii) recognising the importance of capacity building within Indigenous communities.

Particularly relevant to the issue of benchmarking is the identification of the need to improve performance in respect of data matters ((vi) above). It was evident to the CGC that much of the required data for analysing service delivery was non existent, or partial, or unreliable, or not comparable either between regions or over time. As the Report says, access to comparable and reliable data is critical if objective measures of Indigenous need are to be better incorporated in decisions on the allocation of funds. The Report notes various data problems, including:

  • concerns with Census data; [76]
  • the difficulty of obtaining administrative data; [77]
  • where it does exist, the lack of comparability;
  • at times confidentiality constraints; and
  • the fact that there are practically no data on what mainstream funds are spent by region, or by any specific group of people.

Noting that 'a much greater effort will need to be made by the Commonwealth, the States and other service providers to improve their comparability, reliability and availability', the Report recommended that priority must be given to collecting comparable regional data for many variables. The Report observed that to achieve good consistent data, the Commonwealth, State and other service providers needed to, as a matter of urgency:

  • identify minimum data sets and define each data item using uniform methods so that the needs of Indigenous people in each functional area can be reliably measured;
  • prepare measurable objectives so that defined performance outcomes can be measured and evaluated at a national, State and regional level;
  • ensure data collection is effective, yet sensitive to the limited resources available in service delivery organisations to devote to data collection;
  • negotiate agreements with community based service providers on the need to collect data, what data should be collected, who can use the data, the conditions on which the data will be provided to others and what they can use it for; and
  • encourage all service providers to give a higher priority to the collection, evaluation and publication of data.

Finally, the Report confirmed that without these steps, data will never be adequate to support detailed needs-based resource allocation. The Report acknowledges that many of these principles are in fact being followed in work that is underway. However, it is observed that it is likely to be a long time before the benefits are obtained in the form of more complete and comparable data that can be used to measure needs as part of resource allocation processes. The Report surveyed some initiatives taken to improve data management. These included:

  • Whole of government commitments:

    In 1997, the Prime Minister asked the Steering Committee on the Review of Commonwealth-State Service Provision to oversee the preparation and publication of data on services provided to Indigenous people. The November 2000 COAG meeting reaffirmed that requirement.
  • Initiatives by the Australian Bureau of Statistics:

    The ABS has work underway to increase the range and quality of nationwide statistics on Indigenous people (see below).
  • Specific Purpose Payments arrangements:

    Some of the recent agreements covering the Commonwealth's Specific Purpose Payments to the States should increase the availability of information because they require reporting against agreed indicators of outcomes or outputs. Such conditions are included in the Australian Health Care Agreements and the agreements under the Indigenous Education (Targeted Assistance) Act, 2000. There is a similar requirement covering the provision of service activity data in the Commonwealth's agreements for funding Aboriginal Community Controlled Health Services.
  • Funding and Service Delivery in Practice:

    To date, much of the data on performance indicators, such as that provided under the previous agreements, have not been comparable across the States. The newer agreements attempt to obtain the greater comparability that is essential if the data are to be used for resource allocation purposes.
  • Initiatives in functional areas:

    There has been activity to improve data quality and availability in areas such as health and housing. In 1996, Commonwealth and State Housing Ministers agreed to the establishment of a Commonwealth State Working Group on Indigenous Housing (CSWGIH), which has since developed an Agreement on National Indigenous Housing Information. The long term aim of CSWGIH is to develop means of obtaining housing administrative data that are consistent and compatible with related data collections. Work has begun on collecting a minimum data set and developing performance indicators. The work has emphasised the need for national standards, co-ordination and commitment to the collection of data, and for additional training and resources to help community housing organisations collect more reliable data.

A further significant development was the engagement by the inquiry of the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) to prepare an experimental index of Indigenous socio-economic disadvantage. The experimental index does not provide any information about the absolute level of disadvantage. Having determined that it is feasible to construct the index, the ABS will examine the feasibility of sub-dividing the index according to broad functional lines as well as along geographical lines. ATSIC has provided detailed comments on this index. [78]

Response to CGC Report by the Federal Government

The Government noted that its response to the CGC Report built on the Government's commitment to address the underlying and contemporary causes of Indigenous disadvantage, not just its symptoms. [79] That commitment is founded on a partnership with Indigenous people and follows a number of key themes, including taking a whole-of-government approach by involving all relevant portfolio Ministers and the States and Territories, working within the reconciliation framework set down by the Council of Australian Governments (COAG).

The Government observed that the Report provided a valuable basis for development of evidence-based policy in Indigenous affairs. The Government set out 5 actions that it had agreed to in response to the Report, viz:

  • First, the adoption of a set of principles to guide its approach to meeting the needs of Indigenous people (see below);
  • Second, continued action by the Government to reduce Indigenous disadvantage through improving access to mainstream programs and services and by better targeting Indigenous-specific programs to areas of greatest need, including remote locations;
  • Third, where appropriate, the Government will seek to include clear Commonwealth objectives and associated reporting requirements in respect of inputs and regional outcomes for Indigenous Australians in renewed SPPs to States and Territories in the areas of health, housing, infrastructure and education.
  • Fourth, where the Government provides additional funding through mainstream services for Indigenous clients, and/or provides supplementary funding through Indigenous specific programs, it is committed to working towards having the ABS standard Indigenous identifier in the major mainstream administrative data sets;
  • Fifth, the Minister will report publicly in 2005-06 on the geographic distribution of Indigenous need, the alignment of mainstream and Indigenous-specific resources to meet that need and the progress in making mainstream services more accessible to Indigenous Australians.

The response from the Government thus contains a number of important undertakings and commitments. These are made in the context of "Principles for equitable provision of services to Indigenous people". These Principles build on the understandings developed through the work of the CGC, and others, in identifying the basic requirements and parameters for effective and equitable approaches to addressing Indigenous disadvantage. Together with the commitment to action set out above, the Principles set an agenda which provides an accountability framework for Government. The issue, as has been the case in the past, will be whether the rhetoric will be matched by action and by the level of priority accorded to these matters. The Principles are set out below:


Principles for equitable provision of services to Indigenous people [80]

1. The design and delivery of services to meet Indigenous needs should be flexible and undertaken on the basis of partnerships and shared responsibilities with Indigenous people in a culturally and locationally appropriate way.

2. The development of a long term perspective in the funding, design and implementation of programs and services to provide a secure context for setting goals.

3. Access to services will be provided on the basis of need and equity to all Australians, including Indigenous Australians, with a clear focus on achieving measurable outcomes.

4. Mainstream programs and services have the same responsibility to assist Indigenous Australians as other Australians.

5. The resources needed to address the specific disadvantages faced by Indigenous clients, whether delivered through the mainstream or Indigenous-specific services, can be greater than for other clients, especially in rural and remote locations.

6. Where mainstream services are unable to effectively meet the needs of Indigenous people (whether due to geographic limits to availability or other barriers to access) additional Indigenous-specific services are required.

7. Overall capacity to achieve outcomes is an important factor when considering whether Indigenous-specific programs and services should be established to meet identified need or whether to enhance mainstream programs.

8. Coordination of service delivery within and between governments.

9. Improving community capacity is a key factor in achieving sustainable outcomes for Indigenous communities.

10. Data collection systems require continuous improvement to ensure performance reporting on key Indigenous outcomes is of a high standard and enables resource allocation to be better aligned with identified need, including by geography.


6. Australian Bureau of Statistics

The Census 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:

Indigenous Profile

The Indigenous Profile (IP) is part of the Census Community Profile series, and contains 29 tables of data on Indigenous people including comparisons with non-Indigenous people wherever possible. The Indigenous Profile is available for geographic areas including ATSIC regions. Data available through the profiles include age by Indigenous status by gender; type of educational institution attending by Indigenous status by gender; highest level of schooling by Indigenous status by gender; language spoken at home and proficiency in spoken English by gender; computer use by Indigenous status by age by gender and so forth.

The Population Distribution of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders was released in June 2002. This publication presents counts for Indigenous Australians from the 2001 Census, accompanied by information on data quality to help interpret the 2001 Census counts. Experimental resident population estimates of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander population, based on the 2001 Census, are also included. Census counts of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander population are also provided for small areas (Indigenous Areas and Locations) and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission regions.

The ABS also completed in 2001-02 the design and development of the first Indigenous Social Survey (ISS) since the 1994 National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Survey (NATSIS). The ISS will survey 12,000 Indigenous Australians, including those living in discrete Indigenous communities in remote areas of Australia, and will go into the field in the second half of 2002.

National Health Survey: Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Results, Australia, 2001 is expected to be released late November 2002. It presents selected data from the 2001 National Health Survey about the health of Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians. Topics include measures of health status, health actions taken, and lifestyle factors which may influence health.

Future developments

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. Government Response to the Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation

The CAR's Final Report, which also contained the Australian Declaration Towards Reconciliation and the four national strategies from the Roadmap for Reconciliation (see above), was presented in December 2000. The Government responded to the CAR Final Report in September 2002. In releasing this response, the Minister, Mr Ruddock, emphasized the Government's commitment to 'practical reconciliation'. [81] This is consistent with the central response of the Government to reconciliation over some time.

The emphasis on 'practical reconciliation' stands in opposition to a rights-based approach, and in particular to recognition of rights that may arise from the unique position of Indigenous peoples as the original owners and occupiers of the land. Thus, while, in the Government's view, special measures can be implemented to overcome disadvantage, they are not to be seen as providing any rights additional to or different from other Australians. The Government's response makes this point explicitly:

The Government supports additional measures to ensure equality of opportunity where such measures are necessary to overcome specific disadvantages experienced by Indigenous people. Neither the Government nor the general community, however, is prepared to support any action which would entrench additional, special or different rights for one part of the community. [82]

In respect of 'practical reconciliation', the Social Justice Commissioner, Bill Jonas, has pointed out that the emphasis on practical reconciliation had been used to remove the rights discourse from the matters involved with Indigenous disadvantage:

Talk of 'practical reconciliation' asserts moral authority to shut down debate about the importance of proceeding to address disadvantage on the basis of rights by presenting them as something that are merely desirable or aspirational, but not connected to the real issues at hand. Rights are seen as a distraction from the real task on which the government is focused…

In brief the problem with this approach is the simplistic, arbitrary and extremely artificial division it creates between measures which are described as practical as opposed to symbolic. [83]

Mr Ruddock noted, in respect of the Government response, that the Government had already implemented a number of CAR's recommendations. In particular, CAR had called on the Council of Australian Governments (COAG) to implement and monitor a national framework whereby all governments and ATSIC would work to overcome Indigenous disadvantage by setting program performance benchmarks that are measurable, agreed with Indigenous people and publicly reported. Mr Ruddock noted that in November 2000, the Commonwealth and State and Territory Governments had, through COAG, issued a communiqué on reconciliation consistent with the CAR recommendation. The communiqué committed COAG to advancing reconciliation in regard to socio-economic disadvantage through a nationally-coordinated reconciliation framework. COAG's approach would be based on partnerships and shared responsibilities with Indigenous communities, program flexibility and coordination between government agencies, with a focus on local communities and outcomes. COAG had agreed to the development of action plans, performance monitoring strategies and performance benchmarks, these to be developed and implemented by Commonwealth/State Ministerial Councils. COAG also had agreed that the annual Report on Government Services, prepared by the Productivity Commission on behalf of the Steering Committee for the Review of Commonwealth State Service Provision (SCRCSSP), would continue to focus on the performance of mainstream services in meeting the needs of Indigenous Australians.

The Government's response further noted that COAG met in April 2002 to consider the nation's progress in implementing the framework to advance reconciliation and to consider next steps in addressing the identified priorities. At this meeting COAG agreed to trial a whole-of-government approach in up to 10 communities or regions. The aim of these trials would be to improve the way governments interact with each other and with communities to deliver more effective responses to the needs of Indigenous Australians. Accordingly, the Commonwealth has established a core group of Departmental Secretaries to guide a dedicated taskforce charged with the responsibility of turning the whole-of-government approach into reality.

At its April 2002 meeting, COAG also agreed to commission the SCRCSSP to produce a regular report against key indicators of Indigenous disadvantage. This report would help measure the impact of changes to policy settings and service delivery, and provide a concrete way to measure the effect of the Council's commitment to reconciliation through a jointly agreed set of indicators.

The Government's response noted, however, some areas where there it disagreed with the CAR approach to reconciliation. For example, the Government was unable to endorse the approach to customary law in the Council's Declaration. As well, the Government refused to endorse the term 'self-determination', nor would it support a formal apology for the injustices of the past. However, the Government response claimed that there was vastly more common ground than difference between the CAR Declaration and the Government's response in relation to progressing reconciliation.

8. Further developments in progressing benchmarking

Whole of Government

In September 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.

Annual Report on Government Services

The seventh annual Report on Government Services 2002 reflected the growing inclusion of Indigenous statistics in the Report, resulting from the request by the Prime Minister in 1997 for the Review to give particular attention to the performance of mainstream services, which was reinforced by the 2000 COAG. The Review reported on Indigenous-specific housing for the first time. The Review foreshadowed assistance in its task of reporting Indigenous statistics from work underway separately to develop indicators to assist in assessing progress towards meeting the objectives of the COAG Reconciliation Commitment. Of particular relevance to the Review will be a number of whole of government lead indicators of social and economic disadvantage with a focus on those issues requiring successful interventions spanning more than one ministerial council. These include indicators of:

  • Family violence
  • Law and justice
  • Health, housing and community well-being
  • Education

The Review also noted that its task is complicated by the administrative nature of many data collections that do not distinguish between Indigenous and non-Indigenous clients. The method and level of identification of Indigenous people appear to vary across jurisdictions. In this context, the Review cross referenced to work being undertaken by the ABS (see above).

Steering Committee: Reporting Indigenous disadvantage

Further to COAG's April 2002 decision 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 Prime Minister wrote to Gary Banks, the Chair of the Steering Committee, noting that its key task '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'. [84]

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. Please note: if you require this information in a more accessible format, please email webfeedback@humanrights.gov.au

Priority outcomes

The three priority outcomes (right column in above box) are based on COAG's 'priority areas for policy action' and provide the end focus of the Framework. They are:

  • safe, healthy and supportive family environments with strong communities and cultural identity;
  • positive child development and prevention of violence, crime and self harm; and
  • improved wealth creation and economic sustainability for individuals, families and communities.

A two tier set of indicators: These encompass 'headline indicators' of the higher order outcomes, and strategic areas for policy action has been developed. These emphasise the possible need for joint action within and across governments.

The first tier: Headline indicators

The headline indicators (shown in the centre column of the Framework) are intended to provide a snapshot of the state of social and economic Indigenous disadvantage, given the overall priorities that have been identified. They sit within four areas of well-being:

  • Individual capacities
  • Material/economy
  • Spiritual/cultural
  • Family and community

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).

The second tier: Strategic areas for action

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? Please note: if you require this information in a more accessible format, please email webfeedback@humanrights.gov.au

Once the Framework has been finalized 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 schema outlined above. The questionnaire canvassed a number of basic questions about the Framework. Some of these are covered in the "Issues" section below.

9. Governance and capacity building

Governance and capacity building are receiving increased scrutiny as representing the foundation of reconciliation, self-determination and realization 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 people's 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. As Bill Jonas has pointed out:

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. [85]

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. [86] For example, the Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation's strategy for achieving economic independence focuses on how governments and peak private sector organizations can apply affirmative action and culturally sensitive initiatives. The strategy is more directed towards channelling 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. [87]

In a similar vein Noel Pearson has emphasized 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. [88]

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. [89]

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 organizations 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 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 organized 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.

In summary, the Social Justice Report 2000 argued that Governments should agree to negotiate mechanisms to facilitate greater regional autonomy through the design and delivery of programs and services. Negotiations should include matters such as:

  • developing flexible funding arrangements with Indigenous organizations, including transfer of funding, block funding and arrangements for pooling funds across governments and on a regional basis; and
  • Indigenous participation in developing service delivery priorities, setting benchmarks and targets on a regional basis, and in monitoring and evaluating progress.

Essential to the development of effective governance is capacity building, currently the subject of a Parliamentary Inquiry. [90]

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. Other developments include:

  • NSW Service Delivery Partnership Agreement between the NSW Government, ATSIC and the NSW Aboriginal Land Council, signed 1 November 2002;
  • In July 2002 the Queensland Government and ATSIC signed a 'Commitment to Partnership';
  • ATSIC and South Australia Government Partnering Agreement December 2001;
  • ATSIC/S.A State Government Bilateral Agreement for provision of essential services to Aboriginal communities - currently under negotiation;
  • ATSIC and Western Australia Statement of Commitment October 2000; and
  • Victorian Aboriginal Justice Agreement (2000) and ATSIC/Victorian Government Communiqué of June 2000.

In the case of Queensland, a number of steps have been undertaken to implement programs to address Indigenous disadvantage, consistent with COAG principles and in partnership with Indigenous communities. The Queensland Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Justice Agreement [91] 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 [92] is an example of the types of partnerships that can be developed. Cape York Partnerships involves Indigenous organizations 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. [93]

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 people 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 centres. 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.

In summary, the Queensland situation represents a series of initiatives, at regional and statewide level, in partnership with Indigenous organizations and in co-operation with ATSIC and the Federal Government, to attempt to address Indigenous disadvantage as an integral part of the reconciliation agenda.

11. Issues and Questions

The following are some suggested key issues in developing the Reconciliation benchmarking project. The list is by no means prescriptive, but suggests areas where further thought and discussion may be required:

1. Building governance/capacity building into benchmarking

Governance, both in terms of governance arrangements and in terms of performance, is central to the empowerment of Indigenous society and addressing disadvantage.

Question: What performance indicators and benchmarks can be developed in respect of the democratic/representative nature of governance arrangements?

Question: How should governance arrangements take into account Indigenous culture and norms (or, at least, that they are not hostile to Indigenous law and practice)?

Question: How can we benchmark the performance of Indigenous governance bodies and structures in terms of their functions?

Question: How can we ensure that capacity building is, in the terms of Dr Begay at the Governance Conference, strengthening institutional capacity, not just sending people to courses?

2. Statistics

There are significant data problems in measuring progress against targets and indicators.

Question: Is enough being done to improve data collection? Are there dangers in basing policy on progress against benchmarks when the supporting data has deficiencies?

Question: How important are national indicators as against data disaggregated by region or differentiated on other bases?

The Steering Committee for the Review of Commonwealth /State Provision has circulated proposed 'Headline' and 'second tier' indicators.

Question: Is the Steering Committee's 2 tier approach appropriate? What about the specific indicators? Does the Steering Committee's approach provide an appropriate consultation process with Indigenous people in agreeing benchmarks and indicators, and in their ongoing review?

The pressure to meet targets could lead to undue emphasis on improving statistics as statistics, with the primary objective of improving the reality of peoples lives being lost to view.

Question: How to prevent statistics being manipulated; how to prevent the biggest impact of benchmarking being on statistics rather than on reality?

3. Progressive realization of Economic, social and cultural rights

Despite enormous disruption, some parts of the traditional Aboriginal economy still exist to some degree, but are in the main not part of the market economy.

Question: Is the Indigenous standard of living in some circumstances under-estimated? Should subsistence activities and production (in kind) be measured? What about cultural satisfaction, traditional education? Or would attempts to measure these Indigenous domains that lie outside the market be intrusive and/or inappropriate? Is there such a thing as a culturally neutral indicator?

The Commonwealth Grants Commission has recommended ensuring a long term perspective to the design and implementation of programs and services, thus providing a secure context for setting goals.

Question: How can this objective be achieved in a climate of short term and pilot projects, grant application driven programming, and outsourcing of government functions?

4. Participation in benchmarking

Question: 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?

The Report of the Fitzgerald Cape York Justice Study notes that while consultation with Indigenous communities and shared responsibilities are commendable objectives, nevertheless unrealistic burdens should not be placed on communities. It further notes that effective and accountable public administration requires a clear, precise allocation of responsibility for decisions and actions.

Question: How can it be ensured that the objectives of self-determination and effective participation do not result, either deliberately or unwittingly, in abdication of responsibility by government agencies?

 


1. See, for example, B Davidson and C Jennett, Addressing Disadvantage - A Greater Awareness of the Causes of Indigenous Australian's 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, Overcoming Disadvantage, Appendix 2 Statistics of social and economic well-being, CAR Reconciliation documents 2000.

2. See, for example, Noel Pearson, The Light on the Hill, Ben Chifley Memorial Lecture 12 August 2000 at www.capeyorkpartnerships.com; Peter Sutton, 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; R Trugden, Why Warriors Lie Down and Die, ARDS Darwin 2000.

3. Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights: Concluding Observations: Australia 01/09/2000, paragraph 15. UN Document E/C.12/1/add.50 1 September 2000.

4. 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.

5. Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody, National Report, Canberra 1991.

6. Ibid, Volume 1 para 1.3.1 - 1.3.3

7. Ibid, p 15.

8. Quoted in Commonwealth Grants Commission, Report on Indigenous Funding 2001, Canberra 2001, p89.

9. ATSIC, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples and Australia's Obligations under the United Nations International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, August 2000. p 39. Found at www.atsic.gov.au.

10. Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation, Australia's Challenge, CAR, Canberra 2000.

11. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Justice Commissioner, Social Justice Report 2000, HREOC Sydney 2000, p 2.

12. Ibid, p 4.

13. Ibid, p 100.

14. Ibid, pp 130-132.

15. See ATSIC, Recognition, rights and reform: Report to Government on native title social justice measures, Canberra, ATSIC 1995. pp 9-10.

16. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Justice Commissioner, Social Justice Report 2001, HREOC Sydney 2001.

17. Prime Minister. Council of Australian Governments communiqué, Press Release, 3 November 2000.

18. Social Justice Report 2001, p 25.

19. Ibid, pp 219-220.

20. Senate Legal and Constitutional Committee, Inquiry into Progress Towards National Reconciliation at www.aph.gov.au/senate/committee/legcon_ctte/reconciliation/index.htm.

21. Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (CESCR), General Comment 3: The nature of States parties obligations.

22. Ibid, para 1.

23. Ibid, para 2.

24. Ibid, para 4.

25. Ibid, para 9.

26. Ibid, para 10.

27. CESCR, General Comment 4: The Right to adequate housing.

28. Ibid, para 1.

29. Ibid, para 7.

30. Ibid, para 8(g).

31. Commenting on discussion about resourcing outstations on Cape York, David Martin (Centre for Aboriginal Economic Policy Research) has commented: "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.

32. CESCR, General Comment No. 14 (2000): The Right to the highest attainable standard of health.

33. 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.

34. Ibid, para 11.

35. Ibid, para 27.

36. UNDP, Human Development Report 2000 - Human rights and human development, UNDP New York 2000. www.undp.org/hdro/HDR2000.html.

37. Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights and UNDP, Draft Guidelines on Poverty Alleviation.

38. See in particular chapter 5 at: http://hdr.undp.org/reports/global/2000/en/pdf/hdr_2000_ch5.pdf

39. UNDP, World Development Report 2000. p 89

40. Ibid, p 108.

41. Ibid, p 49.

42. Ibid, p 90.

43. OHCHR/UNDP, op cit, Chapter 1, para 1.

44. Ibid, para 18.

45. Ibid, para 24.

46. 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 1994.

47. Altman J, Foreword, in Rowse, T, Indigenous Futures, UNSW Press 2002, p xi.

48. 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, p 4.

49. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission, Recognition, rights and reform, op cit, para 1.8.

50. Ibid.

51. Ibid.

52. Ibid, p 7.

53. See Rowse, op cit. p 8.

54. Taylor, J (1991), 'Geographic location and Aboriginal economic status: A Census-based analysis of outstations in Australia's Northern Territory'. CAEPR Discussion Paper 8, p 27.

55. Altman, JC and Smith, DE (1992), 'Estimating the Reliance of Aboriginal Australians on welfare: Some policy implications'. CAEPR Discussion Paper 19.

56. Ibid, p 20.

57. Social Justice Report 2000, p 103.

58. CAR, Overcoming disadvantage, op cit.

59. Rowse, op cit, provides a critical overview of the work of CAEPR during its first decade.

60. Taylor, J (1993) Regional Change in the Economic Status of Indigenous Australians, 1986-91. CAEPR Research Monograph 5.

61. Rowse op cit pp32 and 35.

62. Guideline 1, para 50.

63. Taylor, J and Altman, JC (1997), The Job Ahead: Escalating Economic Costs of Indigenous Employment Disparity ATSIC.

64. Taylor, J and Hunter, B (1998), The Job Still Ahead ATSIC.

65. Hunter, B "Three nations, not one: Indigenous and other Australian poverty", CAEPR Working Paper No.1/1999.

66. Hunter, B H, Kennedy, S and Biddle, N, 'One size fits all? The effect of equivalence scales on Indigenous economic and other poverty' CAEPR Working Paper No. 19/2002.

67. Daly, A E, (1991), "The participation of Aboriginal people in the Australian labour market". CAEPR Discussion Paper 6.

68. Gray, M, Hunter, B, and Schwab, R G (1998), "A critical survey of Indigenous education outcomes 1986-1996" CAEPR Discussion Paper 208.

69. Schwab, R G, 'Having it "both ways": The continuing complexities of community-controlled Indigenous education' CAEPR Discussion paper 111.

70. Gray, A (1997), 'The explosion of Aboriginality: Components of Indigenous population growth 1991-96 CAEPR Discussion Paper 142; "Growth of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander population, 1991-2001 and beyond' CAEPR Discussion Paper 150.

71. Taylor, J and Bell, M, 'Estimating intercensal Indigenous employment change, 1991-96' CAEPR Discussion Paper 155.

72. 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. 22/2002.

73. Commonwealth Grants Commission, Report on Indigenous Funding 2001, Canberra 2001.

74. Social Justice Report 2000 p 102.

75. CGC Report, op cit, pp xviii-xix.

76. Ibid, pp 14-15.

77. 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.

78. See ATSIC Response to the CGI Report at www.atsic.gov.au.

79. The Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs, Phillip Ruddock, 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'.

80. Ibid

81. Ruddock, P, Minister for Immigration and Indigenous Affairs, Reconciliation Council's Report Highlights Practical Approach, Media Release 26 September 2002.

82. Commonwealth Government, Response to the Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation Final Report - Reconciliation: Australia's Challenge, September 2002, p 17.

www.minister.immi.gov.au.

83. Social Justice Report 2000, op cit, p 23.

84. Steering Committee for the Review of Commonwealth/State Service Provision, Reporting on Indigenous Disadvantage, at www.pc.au/gsp/indigenous framework/index.html

85. Social Justice Report 2000, op cit, p 107.

86. Ibid.

87. ATSIC News, Spring 2002, p 44.

88. SBS Insight, The Person View, 22 March 2001.

89. Pearson, N, Our Right to take Responsibility, Noel Pearson and Associates, Cairns 2000, pp 42-3.

90. See House of Representatives Committee on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs, Inquiry into Capacity Building in Indigenous communities.

91. www.indigenous.qld.gov.au

92. see www.capeyorkpartnerships.com/project/gov/index.htm

93. Beattie, P, An Open Letter from Premier Beattie to the Indigenous Peoples of Cape York, at www.capeyorkpartnerships.com/project/gov/index.htm.

Last updated 7 October 2003.