Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues: Round Table Discussion: ‘Indigenous Peoples and the private sector and the issue of Indigenous entrepreneurship and how it is supported on the local, regional and global fora’

back to UN Permanent Forum pages

Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues
Seventh Session
New York, 21 April – 2 May 2008

Round Table Discussion: ‘Indigenous Peoples and the private sector and the issue of Indigenous entrepreneurship and how it is supported on the local, regional and global fora’

Tom Calma, Aboriginal And Torres Strait Islander Social Justice Commissioner, Human Rights And Equal Opportunity Commission Of Australia.

24 April 2008

United Nations Headquarters, New York

---

Can I begin by thanking Pam Kraft of the Tribal Link Foundation for the invitation to participate in this roundtable today to discuss issues relating to Indigenous People and the private sector.

As in other countries, Indigenous peoples in Australia face significantly higher levels of disadvantage when compared to all other groups in society. This occurs at all stages of the life cycle – with significantly higher rates of maternal and child health issues such as infant mortality, low birth weight babies and so on; through to overcrowding in housing, lower educational attainment and lower rates of employment and income. 

The situation is clearly one of inter-generational poverty, where individuals are starting their life ‘behind the eight ball’ – already facing additional barriers that they must overcome if they are to succeed.

Ultimately, when we talk about self-determination, about the freedom to live well, and to freely make choices, we must also talk about creating an environment in which our people can be economically independent.

This requires movement from total dependence upon government funding – be it welfare or what is often limited or inadequate government service provision, - to sustain economies.

This requires a complex array of actions – ranging from ensuring adequate access to infrastructure and basic housing, through to support for getting our kids into school and keeping them there so that they can learn; and right across a spectrum to undertaking measures to build the capacity of communities so that they are in a position to benefit from economic opportunities that may exist or which may be created, based on the ‘cultural capital’ and knowledge of Indigenous people.

Wealth creation and creating sustainable economic opportunities for Indigenous people and communities remains a significant challenge. It is something that we must strive for if we are to achieve economic independence for Indigenous peoples and to give meaning to the full range of human rights and ultimately achieve for our people the opportunity to develop and thrive.

The private sector has a critical role to play in developing sustainable economic opportunities for Indigenous communities.

I am going to briefly talk about a few private sector partnerships that have emerged in recent years in Australia. Businesses enter such partnerships as it is good for business – either directly for the bottom line or for the triple bottom line and corporate social responsibility reasons. So I don’t think we should pretend otherwise or treat such partnerships as if they were benevolence, which also won’t work long term.

One very innovative and successful private sector partnership that has emerged with Indigenous peoples in Australia in recent years is the Aboriginal Employment Service (or AES).

The AES started in a regional centre in New South Wales called Moree – a place that has an agricultural economic base related to processing cotton.

A cotton farmer entered into a partnership with the local Aboriginal community to provide employment and training opportunities in the cotton industry and also with local businesses. He has supported and mentored a team of Indigenous people to lead the organisation – and the service is almost entirely managed by Indigenous people. He approached some of the major banks to be involved, and over close to a decade the service has now spread to a number of regional and urban centres across NSW and now other states in Australia.

Each AES is run by Aboriginal people. The service sits outside what you would describe as the ‘usual’ framework for delivering employment related services to Indigenous people – they do not accept a cash lump sum payment from the government for each person placed in employment – something they consider to be a ‘bounty’ that does not necessarily support the appropriate level of support for people placed in employment.

Instead, they negotiate with large and small corporate organisations to firstly create training positions and then make ordinary employment opportunities available to indigenous peoples. They support people into employment and work with them for approximately 12 months to ensure that there is a better chance of them keeping their job.

Banks like the ANZ Bank now have ambitious targets for Indigenous recruitment, they run indigenous cadetship programs where young Aboriginal people still at school will undertake training and work at the bank while they are still at school. They had committed, for example, to employing several hundred Indigenous peoples across rural and regional areas in NSW.

As you may know, Australia is also currently in the biggest mining boom in our history. Traditionally, despite mining occurring on traditional lands of Indigenous peoples, we have not benefited much from mining activity.

There are a number of mining and exploration ventures in Australian that are located on Aboriginal land or subject to a native title claim. This generally means that mining companies must negotiate with traditional land owners regarding land use.

The Argyle Participation Agreement illustrates how Indigenous communities can influence native title agreements and government funding arrangements to further their economic and community development goals.

Argyle Diamonds have been mining in the East Kimberley region of Western Australia for the past 20 years. The Argyle lease occupies the traditional country of the Mirriuwung and Gidja peoples as well the Malgnin and Woolah peoples. However, in recent years there has been fresh dialogue between the two groups about how best to meet both groups’ needs. This new conversation about how to do business revolved around mutual benefits from the mining venture as opposed to ways of old which simply focused on what Argyle could get out of Aboriginal land.

Importantly, the venture developed a number of strategies which sought to enhance the relationship between the groups as well as provide a sustainable economic base for the local community through providing employment opportunities and training, cross-cultural awareness training for Argyle employees and the protection of indigenous sacred sites.

The Argyle venture agreed as a part of their Training and Employment Management Plan to maintain an indigenous staff retention rate at 40% until mining ceases. An internal Business Development Taskforce has also been established which engages indigenous elders and Argyle representatives to ensure that traditional owners are informed and included in potential business development opportunities.

This level of interaction with indigenous stakeholders has proved positive in terms of enhancing employment opportunities for indigenous people by giving them preference for contract and other service provisions. In this way, there is recognition amongst Argyle that where an indigenous business matches the level of service provision of a non-indigenous business that they will ordinarily win the tender.

This agreement has also resulted in the establishment of the Gelganyem and Kilkayi Trusts to manage royalties to affected communities. To date a training and education fund has been established and the proceeds of that have subsequently been matched by government. This is a good example of the use of a native title agreement to leverage another agreement or program for strategic economic and development outcomes.

The Argyle example highlights several factors – the building of sustainable communities through training and economic development, but also indigenous self-government and the importance of partnerships with corporate stakeholders.

Agreements such as Argyle are seen as positive developments by local Indigenous people because the parties have integrated into the negotiation process a human rights based approach. Central to the human rights based approach to development, is ensuring engagement and participation of Indigenous peoples in policy making and decision making processes that directly relate to our interests.

Traditional owners and their representative bodies must be active participants in all areas of policy development, not just native title and land rights, to ensure that the best possible outcomes are achievable through agreement-making. And the timeframe for such a process must not be driven by or truncated for political expedience but at a pace that is comfortable and realistic for Indigenous peoples.

In this way, it is imperative that native title processes be integral to the broader Indigenous economic development agenda in order to give Indigenous peoples the greatest potential to pool their resources and skills to address disadvantage.

You can find a human rights analysis of the Argyle agreement, as well as other agreement processes, in the Native Title Report 2006 to the Australian Federal Parliament.

To conclude, 3 years ago my Office along with the United Nations Secretariat for the Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues co-hosted a workshop in Brisbane Australia titled “Engaging the marginalised” which looked to develop guiding principles for engagement with Indigenous peoples by the private sector, government and civil society.

The workshop developed guidelines for governments, the private sector and civil society to engage with indigenous peoples, such as in the following contexts:

• Where there is development and use of Indigenous lands and territories, including sacred sites;
• Where there is access to natural resources including biological and genetic resources and/ or traditional knowledge of indigenous peoples; and
• In relation to development projects, or policies and legislation dealing with or affecting indigenous peoples.

Those guidelines specifically recommend:

First, that a human rights based approach to development be adopted, including by ensuring that Indigenous peoples have the right to full and effective participation in decisions which directly or indirectly affect their lives; and that such participation shall be based on the principle of free, prior and informed consent, including that governments and the private sector provide information that is accurate, accessible, and in a language the indigenous peoples can understand;

Second, that there be mechanisms for representation and engagement, so that there are transparent and accountable frameworks for engagement, consultation and negotiation with indigenous peoples and communities.

Third, that frameworks for engagement allow for the full and effective participation of indigenous peoples in the design, negotiation, implementation, monitoring, evaluation and assessment of outcomes.

And fourth, that there be a focus by governments, the private sector, civil society and international organizations and aid agencies to support efforts to build the capacity of indigenous communities, including in the area of human rights so that they may participate equally and meaningfully in the planning, design, negotiation, implementation, monitoring and evaluation of policies, programs and projects that affect them.

These are all factors critical to building successful partnerships with the private sector, and ultimately to supporting the economic aspirations of Indigenous people.

Thank you.