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