Social Justice Report 2003: SUMMARY SHEET TWO: GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY FOR RECONCILIATION
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Justice
Media Pack:
SUMMARY SHEET TWO: GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY FOR RECONCILIATION
During 2003, the government's approach to reconciliation has continued to be restricted to measures that fall within its 'practical' reconciliation approach. This has the consequence of there being a partial framework for progressing reconciliation with significant issues of unfinished business left in abeyance. The report establishes that progress in advancing 'practical' reconciliation over the course of the year has been variable.
'The statistical data indicates that there has been limited progress over the past five years in achieving the central purpose of practical reconciliation, namely improved Indigenous well-being. Of particular concern is the fact that the disparities that exist between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians have remained substantially the same, or have widened over the past five and ten years. Indigenous Australians also presently endure health standards worse than those in some so-called 'third world' countries. The lack of progress in achieving substantial improvement in Indigenous well-being is also in marked contrast to outcomes in similar settler countries such as the USA, Canada and New Zealand' (p54).
2003 saw the development of significant measures for advancing reconciliation within the framework of the Council of Australian Governments. The national reporting framework on Indigenous disadvantage and whole-of-government trials under COAG (see further summary sheet ) are in fledgling stages and there are a number of issues that remain to be addressed before success is assured.
'These initiatives have not, however, been backed up by a range of other commitments and processes that are necessary to ensure the long-term sustainability of improvements in the well-being of Indigenous peoples. There remains an absence of an appropriate national commitment to redressing Indigenous disadvantage, sufficiently rigorous monitoring and evaluation mechanisms, and benchmarks with both short-term and longer term targets agreed with Indigenous peoples. There are also critical issues relating to the depth of inequality experienced by Indigenous people, the size and growth of the Indigenous population and under-resourcing of services and programs to Indigenous peoples that cannot continue to be ignored if there is to be any genuine improvement in Indigenous peoples' circumstances.
Ultimately, the process of practical reconciliation is hampered by its lack of a substantive action plan for overcoming Indigenous disadvantage in the longer term, with short-term objectives to indicate whether the rate of progress towards this goal is sufficient.
The failure of the government to address these factors as part of its practical reconciliation approach reflects a fundamental flaw in the process. By committing to provide full access to citizenship entitlements and nothing more, practical reconciliation is a 'blank cheque' and amounts to a commitment into the foreseeable future to pay the increased economic and social costs associated with Indigenous disadvantage. In relation to employment alone, this cost is estimated by the Centre for Aboriginal Economic Policy Research to rise to the vicinity of 0.5 to 1% of gross domestic product within the decade.
At this stage, it is not possible to foresee a time when 'record levels of expenditure' of the Commonwealth on Indigenous services will not be necessary. It is also not possible to foresee a time when a continuation of the current approach will result in significant improvements in the lives of Indigenous peoples. Practical reconciliation does not have a plan for overcoming rather than simply managing Indigenous disadvantage.
'Ultimately, deficiencies in monitoring and evaluating processes for reconciliation indicate that there are problems of accountability of governments for their contribution to reconciliation. This lack of accountability allows governments to unilaterally establish the boundaries of issues that they will address in the first place and then to avoid public scrutiny when material improvements in Indigenous well-being are not achieved and sustained. A number of recommendations have been made throughout the course of Chapter 2 of the Report to address this situation' (pp55-56).