Skip to main content

Search

HREOC Social Justice Report 2002: Measuring Indigenous disadvantage

Social Justice Report 2002

  • back to contents
  • Chapter
    4: Measuring Indigenous disadvantage

    Part 1: Benchmarking
    Indigenous disadvantage from a human rights perspective

    1.
    Background issues

    a)
    Indigenous disadvantage


    b) The recommendations of the Council for Aboriginal
    Reconciliation


    c) The Social Justice Reports for 2000 and 2001

    2.
    The Human Rights Context

    3.
    Integrating Human Rights and Development: UN experience

    a)
    UNDP Human Development Report 2000


    b) UNDP and UHCHR Draft Guidelines on Poverty
    Alleviation

    4.
    Research relevant to benchmarking


    5. The Commonwealth Grants Commission Report on Indigenous
    Funding


    6. Australian Bureau of Statistics

    7. Initiatives at the inter-governmental level related
    to benchmarking


    8. The Steering Committee framework for reporting
    on Indigenous disadvantage

    9. Governance and capacity building

    10. Developments at State and Territory level

    Part 2: Incorporating
    human rights into benchmarking reconciliation

    1)
    Indigenous participation in benchmarking


    2) Progressive realisation of economic, social and
    cultural rights


    3) Statistics

    4) Building Indigenous governance and capacity building
    into benchmarking


    5) Discussion of the Steering Committee’s draft
    framework for reporting on Indigenous disadvantage


    Conclusion – Where to from here?


    On 28-29 November
    2002 I convened a workshop on the topic of benchmarking reconciliation
    and human rights. The purpose of the workshop was to consider current
    developments in setting benchmarks, identifying performance indicators
    and developing monitoring and evaluation frameworks for addressing Indigenous
    disadvantage from a human rights perspective. In particular, the workshop
    considered the Draft framework for reporting on Indigenous disadvantage
    currently being developed by the Steering Committee for the Review
    of Commonwealth/State Service Provision under the auspices of the Council
    of Australian Governments (COAG), as well as a range of recent human rights
    and development initiatives at the international level.

    This chapter reflects
    on the issues discussed during the benchmarking reconciliation workshop.
    The first part of the chapter provides an overview of issues relating
    to benchmarking Indigenous disadvantage from a human rights perspective,
    including an overview of international standards as well as recent research
    and practice in Australia. The second part then reports on the discussion
    of these issues at the benchmarking workshop.[1] How
    Indigenous organisations and ATSIC grapple with the Government's processes
    for monitoring practical reconciliation, such as the Steering Committee
    framework, will be of great importance into the future. I therefore conclude
    with some preliminary suggestions as to how to advance these issues over
    the coming year.

    Part 1:
    Benchmarking Indigenous disadvantage from a human rights perspective

    1. Background
    issues

    a) Indigenous
    disadvantage

    Aboriginals and Torres
    Strait Islanders are significantly disadvantaged in contemporary Australian
    society. This disadvantage represents a failure to provide in full measure
    the human rights to which Australian Indigenous peoples are entitled.
    Colonisation, and the consequent dispossession, disruption and dislocation
    have impacted heavily on the well-being of Indigenous individuals and
    communities.

    The extent of Indigenous
    disadvantage in Australia is reflected in statistics showing significant
    health problems, high unemployment, low attainment in the formal education
    sector, unsatisfactory housing and infrastructure and high levels of arrest,
    incarceration and deaths in custody.[2] Indigenous despair
    and distress is exemplified by serious substance abuse, domestic violence,
    suicide and generally significant signs of social dysfunction. There are
    concerns that, in a number of key respects, the socio-economic circumstances
    of Indigenous peoples, particularly in remote areas, has not only not
    improved, but that it has in some respects actually worsened.[3]

    Concern at the level
    of Indigenous disadvantage has been noted at an international level. In
    September 2000 the UN Committee on Economic Social and Cultural Rights
    (CESCR), in its Concluding Observations on Australia's third periodic
    report concerning its obligations under the International Covenant on
    Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR), expressed its:

    deep concern that,
    despite the efforts and achievements of the State party, the indigenous
    populations of Australia continued to be at a comparative disadvantage
    in the enjoyment of economic, social and cultural rights, particularly
    in the field of employment, housing, health and education.[4]

    However, there is
    a dearth of detailed and reliable information. In 1999 Boyd Hunter observed
    that:

    Indigenous Australians
    are the most disadvantaged and poorest sector of Australian society.
    Given these circumstances, the lack of information on what is a significant
    problem is surprising… [T]he fragmentary and incomplete nature
    of existing studies leaves policy makers without direction in attempting
    to deal with entrenched indigenous poverty.[5]

    The significance
    of the extent of disadvantage suffered by Indigenous Australians was highlighted
    by the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody (RCIADIC) in
    1991. A central finding of the final Report of the RCIADIC was that Aboriginal
    people in custody did not die at a greater rate than others. [6]
    Rather, the reason for the high number of Aboriginal deaths in custody
    was that the Aboriginal population was over-represented in custody: 'Too
    many Aboriginal people are in custody too often'. [7]
    Consequently, many of the recommendations of the Report addressed the
    underlying causes of this situation. The Report found that:

    The single significant
    contributing factor to incarceration is the disadvantaged and unequal
    position of Aboriginal people in Australian society in every way, whether
    socially, economically or culturally.[8]

    The emphasis on the
    social, economic and cultural disadvantage underlying incarceration and
    deaths in custody was a defining characteristic of the Report. It linked
    the symptoms of Indigenous distress, such as the high rate of encounters
    with the criminal justice system, with the underlying cause of
    systemic disadvantage suffered by Indigenous Australians. The RCIADIC
    identified as fundamental the disempowerment and marginalisation of Indigenous
    peoples. Accordingly, it identified the necessity that:

    principles of self-determination
    should be applied to the design and implementation of all policies and
    programs affecting Aboriginal people, that there should be maximum devolution
    of power to Aboriginal communities and organisations to determine their
    own priorities for funding allocations, and that such organisations
    should, as a matter of preference be the vehicles through which programs
    are delivered.[9]

    While the linkages
    between Indigenous distress, socio-economic disadvantage, and the need
    for self-determination, were clearly and authoritatively established in
    the 1991 RCIADIC Report, progress since then in dealing with these issues
    has been unsatisfactory. As ATSIC pointed out in its submission to ICESCR
    in 2000: 'attempts to remedy the over-all disadvantage of Indigenous Australians
    have been partial, inadequate and without clear objectives and targets'.[10]

    In the context of
    the movement towards reconciliation, it has become increasingly evident
    that reconciliation entails more than acknowledgement of prior occupation
    and ownership, expressions of apology or regret, and the granting of (limited)
    native title and land rights, as important as these are. While ever the
    social, cultural and economic circumstances of Indigenous Australians
    remain parlous and Indigenous peoples vulnerable, social justice is lacking
    and there is no firm basis for true equality, respect and co-existence.
    The RCIADIC identified the need for a process of reconciliation, and in
    doing so confirmed that the success of the reconciliation process would
    be integrally linked with addressing Indigenous disadvantage.

    b) The
    recommendations of the Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation

    On 7 December 2000,
    the Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation (CAR) presented to the Parliament
    its final report, Australia's Challenge. [11]
    The Report made six recommendations focusing on processes and accountability
    in the context of reconciliation. The first of these recommended that:

    The Council of
    Australian Governments to agree to implement and monitor a national
    framework for all governments and ATSIC to work to overcome indigenous
    disadvantage through setting benchmarks that are measurable, have timelines,
    are agreed with Indigenous peoples and are publicly reported.

    This recommendation
    reflected CAR reconciliation documents released earlier in the year, namely
    the Australian Declaration Toward Reconciliation and the Roadmap
    for Reconciliation
    . The Declaration included the pledge to
    stop injustice and overcome disadvantage and the Roadmap contained
    four national strategies recommending ways to transform the commitment
    to reconciliation into actions. In the context of benchmarking reconciliation,
    of significance is the National Strategy to Overcome Disadvantage,
    focusing on education, employment, health, housing, law and justice. Guidelines
    for implementing this Strategy were published as Overcoming Disadvantage
    - Ways to implement the National Strategy to Overcome Disadvantage, one
    of four National Strategies in the Roadmap for Reconciliation.

    Overcoming Disadvantage
    emphasised, as essential to holding governments accountable, the need
    for reliable information about the level of need, the money spent and
    the services delivered. It identified benchmarking as a means to do this.
    It stressed that accountability and benchmarking required not just accurate
    data, but also a measure of independence and honesty in data collection
    and analysis. It further urged that territory, state and federal Governments,
    and ATSIC, with respect to both mainstream and Indigenous specific programs,
    set national state, territory and regional outcomes and output benchmarks,
    where they do not currently exist, that are measurable, include time-lines
    and are agreed in partnership with Indigenous peoples and communities.
    Governments should publicly and annually present an outputs and outcomes
    report to their respective parliaments, on a whole-of-government basis,
    against these agreed outcomes.

    The report identified
    the leadership role of the Council of Australian Governments (COAG), and
    the need for the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) to continue to
    improve Indigenous data through the census and other surveys, and the
    need for data agencies such as the ABS, the Australian Institute of Health
    and Welfare, the Australian Institute of Criminology and the Steering
    Committee of the Review of Commonwealth/State Service Provision to extend
    their Indigenous data collections and reporting and provide more Indigenous/non-Indigenous
    comparative statistics and breakdowns at the regional and sub-regional
    levels.

    The parameters of
    the project of benchmarking reconciliation are clearly set out in these
    CAR documents. CAR has come to the end of its life, and the focus of activity
    has tended to shift to agencies involved in the practical issues of implementing
    benchmarking programs to address Indigenous disadvantage. While the successor
    to CAR, Reconciliation Australia, will retain an active interest, other
    agencies and organisations have the task of following the roadmap set
    out by the CAR. The roles will range from advocacy and monitoring through
    to policy and planning and the technical issues of collecting and interpreting
    data. Indigenous organisations and communities will need to be effective
    partners in the process if it is to work and have meaning.

    The Government's
    response to the Council's documents, and specifically recommendation 1,
    are discussed in detail in chapters 2 and 3 of the report. The initiatives
    undertaken by the Council of Australian Governments in accordance with
    the recommendations are discussed further below.

    c) The
    Social Justice Reports for 2000 and 2001

    The Social Justice
    Report 2000
    provided a rights-based approach to progressing reconciliation.
    Chapter 4 of the Report, 'Achieving meaningful reconciliation', provided
    a detailed analysis of the processes and mechanisms that enable reconciliation
    to be implemented within a human rights framework. In particular, five
    integrated requirements were identified that need to be met to integrate
    a human rights approach into redressing Indigenous disadvantage and to
    provide sufficient government accountability. These five requirements
    build on the CAR work, and provide a framework for addressing Indigenous
    disadvantage. They are as follows.

    Five
    Requirements for Accountability and Human Rights in Reconciliation

    [12]

    • Making
      an unqualified national commitment to redressing Indigenous disadvantage;

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

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

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

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

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

    • national commitments
      to overcome Indigenous disadvantage;
    • improved data
      collection;
    • monitoring and
      evaluation mechanisms;
    • negotiating with
      Indigenous peoples; and
    • protecting human
      rights.[13]

    This comprehensive
    set of recommendations complement those of CAR and specify the central
    position of human rights for meaningful reconciliation. Together with
    the CAR recommendations they provide a series of actions as a checklist
    for determining progress in respect of advancing reconciliation. In respect
    of the requirement concerning negotiating with Indigenous peoples, this
    necessity has been identified for some time. In particular, this matter
    was spelt out in the social justice package proposals put to the Government
    in 1995 by ATSIC, CAR and the Social Justice Commissioner.[14]

    The Social Justice
    Report 2001
    noted, notwithstanding COAG agreeing to a communiqué
    on reconciliation in 2000 [15] which adopted the first
    recommendation of CAR ( a national framework for overcoming Indigenous
    disadvantage through setting benchmarks), the slow progress and lack of
    specificity in responding to the Reconciliation documents. In the Government's
    response to the Social Justice Report of the previous year, there had
    been no mention of the fourteen recommendations in the Report and no response
    to any of them. Noting that the commitments the 1992 COAG National
    Commitment to improved outcomes in the delivery of programs and services
    for Aboriginal peoples and Torres Strait Islanders
    and the 1997 National
    Ministerial Summit on Deaths in Custody for improved coordination of funding
    and service delivery and for negotiated national benchmarks and targets
    had been largely not implemented, the 2001 Report stated that: 'Government
    programs and inter-governmental coordination continue to lack sufficient
    accountability and transparency'.[16]

    The Report noted
    some positive developments at state government level, in particular the
    conclusion of Justice Agreements. However, due to concerns about the lack
    of response to the CAR documents, as well as the inadequate response to
    the Social Justice Report 2000, the Social Justice Commissioner
    made a further recommendation, calling for a Senate inquiry into national
    progress towards reconciliation.[17]

    On 27 August 2002,
    the Senate referred to its Legal and Constitutional References Committee
    an Inquiry into the Progress Towards National Reconciliation. The
    Social Justice Commissioner, in welcoming the Inquiry, noted that it directly
    responded to Recommendation 11 of the 2001 Social Justice Report. The
    Terms of Reference require the Committee to inquire into:

    • 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.[18]

    2. The
    Human Rights Context

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

    • 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
      realisation
      , that is the commitment of sufficient resources through
      well targeted programs to ensure adequate progress in the realisation
      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 realisation of human rights. Thus, as the scope,
    content and meaning of these rights have to a large degree been elaborated
    in international forums, it is important to see reconciliation as having
    both domestic application and an international dimension.

    Economic, social
    and cultural rights are as much a part of international human rights law
    as are civil and political rights, although they have only achieved full
    recognition in more recent times. They were originally asserted in the
    foundational instrument of human rights law, the 1948 Universal Declaration
    of Human Rights, which stated that freedom from fear and want can only
    be achieved if conditions are created where everyone may enjoy their economic,
    social and cultural rights, as well as their civil and political rights.
    Provisions covering aspects of economic, social and cultural rights are
    contained in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
    1976 (ICCPR), including in particular Article 27 relating to minority
    rights, and the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms
    of Racial Discrimination 1969 (ICERD), in particular Article 2(2) requiring
    states, when circumstances so warrant, to take special and concrete measures
    in the social, economic and cultural fields to ensure adequate development
    and protection of certain racial groups or individuals belonging to them.
    As well, the jurisprudence of the treaty body committees established to
    monitor the implementation of these instruments has added to the understanding
    of the meaning and scope of the relevant provisions.

    The central instrument,
    however, in respect of matters affecting the health and well-being of
    Indigenous peoples and communities is the International Covenant on Economic,
    Social and Cultural Rights 1976 (ICESCR). The work of this Covenant's
    treaty body, the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (CESCR),
    particularly through the interpretation of its provisions by way of General
    Comments, provides authoritative guidance to an appreciation of what is
    involved in the obligation to seek the progressive realisation of these
    rights.

    Australia has ratified
    ICESCR and is consequently bound to implement its provisions as they apply
    to Australia. Article 2 (1) requires a State party to the Convention to
    undertake:

    to take steps…to
    the maximum of its available resources, with a view to achieving progressively
    the full realisation of the rights recognised in the present Covenant
    by all appropriate means... (emphasis added)

    This provision is
    further elaborated by CESCR's General Comment 3.[19]
    It is controlling in respect of all the other provisions of the Covenant.
    [20] While the obligation 'to take steps' means that
    the full realisation of relevant rights may be achieved progressively,
    the taking of such steps cannot be delayed, and further, those steps should
    be deliberate, concrete and targeted as clearly as possible towards meeting
    the obligations recognised in the Covenant. [21]

    Significantly, while
    the periodic reports of States to the Committee should provide not only
    the measures that have been taken, but also the basis on which the State
    considers those steps to have been the most 'appropriate', nevertheless
    'the ultimate determination as to whether all appropriate measures have
    been taken remains one for the Committee to make'.[22]

    That is to say, a
    State cannot purport to sit in judgment on its own performance. Additionally,
    although the Covenant foresees that rights will be realised over time,
    or in other words progressively, there is nevertheless an obligation to
    move as expeditiously and effectively as possible. [23]
    General Comment 3 also notes that a minimum core obligation is incumbent
    upon every State to ensure the satisfaction of, at the very least, minimum
    essential levels of each of the rights. [24] This obligation
    is immediate in its application.

    A number of the provisions
    of this Covenant are directly relevant to the disadvantage suffered by
    the Indigenous peoples of Australia. These include Article 11, the right
    of everyone to an adequate standard of living for themselves and their
    family. This right is instructive in that it demonstrates both the obligatory
    nature of the rights contained in the Covenant and the cultural flexibility
    and relativity that is encapsulated in the ICESCR approach. An implication
    of the right to an adequate standard of living for Australian Indigenous
    peoples can be seen in respect of housing and infrastructure. In General
    Comment 4, the Committee has noted that: [25]

    The human right
    to adequate housing, which is thus derived from the right to an adequate
    standard of living, is of central importance for the enjoyment of all
    economic, social and cultural rights. [26]

    Noting that in particular,
    the enjoyment of this right must not be subject to any form of discrimination,
    the Committee nevertheless advised that the right to housing should not
    be interpreted in a narrow or restrictive sense which equates it with,
    for example, the shelter provided merely by having a roof over one's head
    or views shelter exclusively as a commodity. Rather it should be seen
    as the right to live somewhere in security, peace and dignity. The Committee
    states that:

    Adequate shelter
    means…adequate privacy, adequate space, adequate security, adequate
    lighting and ventilation, adequate basic infrastructure and adequate
    location with regard to work and basic facilities - all at a reasonable
    cost.[27]

    The relevance of
    this approach to the range of circumstances of Indigenous peoples in Australia,
    including encompassing cultural expectations of housing that may differ
    from the mainstream, is evident. In fact, the Committee specifically addresses
    what it terms 'Cultural adequacy'.

    The way housing
    is constructed, the building materials used and the policies supporting
    these must appropriately enable the expression of cultural identity
    and diversity of housing. Activity geared towards development or modernisation
    in the housing sphere should ensure that the cultural dimensions of
    housing are not sacrificed, and that, inter alia, modern technological
    facilities, as appropriate are also ensured. [28]

    This discussion is
    clearly relevant to the provision of adequate and appropriate housing
    for Indigenous peoples in Australia, a major area of disadvantage of Indigenous
    Australians. For example, the CESCR formulation can provide a framework
    for the provision of housing on outstations which both meets equality
    objectives and recognises cultural diversity. Importantly, it shows that
    equality goals should not be used to obstruct people's aspirations for
    outcomes which are not identical to those of the mainstream society.[29]

    However, it should
    also be noted that there are real challenges here for the ways targets
    are constructed and indicators developed to respond to a diversity of
    cultural situations and aspirations. This is discussed below.

    Article 12 provides
    for the right of everyone to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standards
    of physical and mental health. The Committee has elaborated the meaning,
    scope and implication of this Article in a recent detailed General Comment
    (no. 14).[30] Stating that '[H]ealth is a fundamental
    human right indispensable for the exercise of other human rights', the
    Committee noted that the right to health has been confirmed in a number
    of international instruments.[31] The Committee interprets
    the right to health, as contained in the Covenant, as:

    an inclusive right
    extending not only to timely and appropriate health care but also to
    the underlying determinants of health, such as access to safe and potable
    water and adequate sanitation, an adequate supply of safe food, nutrition
    and housing, healthy occupational and environmental conditions, and
    access to health-related education and information, including on sexual
    and reproductive health. A further important aspect is the participation
    of the population in all health-related decision-making at the community,
    national and international levels.[32]

    Of particular note
    is the inclusion of a paragraph specifically relating this right to Indigenous
    peoples. [33] The paragraph emphasises the need for
    health services to be culturally appropriate and for full and effective
    participation by Indigenous peoples. The Committee notes that in Indigenous
    communities the health of the individual is often linked to the health
    of the society as a whole and has a collective dimension. As with other
    rights protected by the Covenant (including the right to education), there
    is an emphasis on the need to develop health strategies that should identify
    appropriate right to health indicators and benchmarks. The indicators
    should be designed to monitor the State's obligations under Article 12.
    Having identified appropriate right to health indicators, states should
    set appropriate benchmarks to each indicator, for use in monitoring and
    reporting.

    In summary, ICESCR
    provides a normative human rights framework for addressing Indigenous
    disadvantage. While the Covenant provides for a realistic and flexible
    approach, it does not compromise on the obligation for States to achieve
    the progressive realisation of rights as effectively and expeditiously
    as possible. States are required to take steps that are deliberate, concrete
    and targeted. An integral part of the obligations assumed by States in
    ratifying the Covenant is to develop strategies, identify indicators and
    determine benchmarks.

    This approach is
    now an integral feature of the international human rights regime, applying
    equally to economic, social and cultural rights as to other rights. But,
    going beyond the prescriptive framework of the Covenant and the other
    human rights treaties, the treaty bodies charged with monitoring their
    implementation have undertaken the task in a manner designed to cooperate
    with and assist States in achieving human rights. International instruments
    such as ICESCR now represent a considerable body of experience and expertise,
    built up over the last 30 years or so.

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

    3. Integrating
    Human Rights and Development: UN experience

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

    • United Nations
      Development Program (UNDP) Human Development Report 2000; [34]
      and
    • Office of UN
      High Commission on Human Rights (OHCHR)/UNDP Draft Guidelines on
      Poverty Alleviation
      .[35]

    Representing current
    developments at the international level, these documents provide useful
    and relevant information and merit attention in the Australian context.
    The following information is intended to note some major features, but
    does not purport to provide a full summary of the documents given their
    detailed nature.

    a) UNDP
    Human Development Report 2000

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

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

    • Making better
      policies and monitoring progress;
    • Identifying unintended
      impacts of laws, policies and practices;
    • Identifying which
      actors are having an impact on the realisation 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'.
    [36] They can allow human rights to be more concretely
    relied upon in designing and evaluating policy. UNDP has provided a framework
    for what the statistics should measure so that they adequately assess
    progress in the realisation of human rights. UNDP suggests that statistics
    must address the following three perspectives, simultaneously:

    • 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.[37]

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

    • 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.[38]

    The UNDP Report provides
    some important qualifications on the use of statistical indicators, including
    benchmarks. Statistics come with strings attached. They provide great
    power for clarity, but also for distortion. When based on careful research
    and method, indicators help establish strong evidence, open dialogue and
    increase accountability. As the following box indicates, care needs to
    be taken: [39]

    Statistical
    Indicators: 'Handle with care'

    Statistical
    indicators need to be:

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

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

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

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

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

    • Designed
      to separate the monitor and the monitored where possible:

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

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

    • 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 formalised
      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.
    b)
    UNDP and UHCHR Draft Guidelines on Poverty Alleviation

    The most comprehensive
    documentation on developing a human rights approach to poverty alleviation
    to date are the draft guidelines developed jointly by the Office of the
    High Commissioner for Human Rights and UNDP. In 2001 the UN Committee
    on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights requested the High Commissioner
    'to develop substantive guidelines for the integration of human rights
    in national poverty reduction strategies'.[40] The draft
    guidelines are the outcome of that request. The objective of the guidelines
    is to provide practitioners involved in the design and implementation
    of poverty reduction strategies with operational guidelines for the adoption
    of a human rights based approach. The purpose is to focus on providing
    guidelines for the use of States that are integrating human rights into
    their poverty reduction strategies. In this respect they can be of relevance
    to the situation in Australia.

    The guidelines state
    that policies and institutions for poverty reduction should be based explicitly
    on the norms and values set out in the international law of human rights,
    and that the human rights approach to poverty reduction is essentially
    about empowerment. The most fundamental way in which empowerment occurs
    is through the introduction of the concept of rights itself. Poverty reduction
    then becomes more than charity, more than a moral obligation - it becomes
    a legal obligation.

    The guidelines note
    that:

    by introducing
    the dimension of an international legal obligation, the human
    rights perspective adds legitimacy to the demand for making poverty
    reduction the primary goal of policy making.[41]

    The guidelines in
    effect synthesise, develop and sytematise the various approaches that
    have grown up in different agencies and in various reports and documents.
    In this context, the summary provided by the guidelines of the advantages
    of the human rights approach provides a useful encapsulation of the rationale
    of rights-based approaches to programs to reduce disadvantage, including
    Indigenous disadvantage. The guidelines state that, in sum, the human
    rights approach has the potential to advance the goals of poverty alleviation
    in a variety of ways:

    a) By urging speedy
    adoption of a poverty reduction strategy, underpinned by human rights
    as a matter of legal obligation;

    b) By broadening
    the scope of poverty reduction strategies so as to address the structures
    of discrimination that generate and sustain poverty;

    c) By urging the
    expansion of civil and political rights, which can play a crucial instrumental
    role in advancing the cause of poverty reduction;

    d) By confirming
    that economic, social and cultural rights are binding international
    human rights, not just programmatic aspirations;

    e) By adding legitimacy
    to the demand for ensuring meaningful participation of the poor in decision-making
    processes;

    f) By cautioning
    against retrogression and non-fulfilment of minimum core obligations
    in the name of making trade-offs; and

    g) By creating
    and strengthening the institutions through which policy-makers can be
    held accountable for their actions.[42]

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

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

    • 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.

    In summary, relevant
    international norms, the views of the treaty monitoring committees, and
    developments in UN bodies in integrating human rights and poverty alleviation,
    are crucial elements in addressing Indigenous disadvantage in Australia.[43]

    4. Research
    relevant to benchmarking

    In Australia, there
    have been significant developments in respect of developing indicators
    and benchmarks. This section examines some relevant research undertaken
    by the Centre for Aboriginal Economic Policy Research (CAEPR).

    In 1998 CAEPR, in
    conjunction with CAR, in discussing a benchmarking framework for service
    delivery to Aboriginal Australians, noted that the historical reasons
    for Indigenous disadvantage could be summarised under the following headings:
    [44]

    • 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'.[45]

    • 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'.[46]

    • 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'.[47]

    • 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 disproport-ionately expensive.

    • 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.[48]

    A further difficulty,
    illustrated by CAEPR research, is that of interpreting statistics relating
    to program outcomes while recognising, and allowing for, the effect on
    outcomes of Indigenous choice, where that choice may not be consistent
    with the stated equality objectives of a policy or program. The policy
    of self-determination is based on the possibility of choice, including
    in respect of lifestyles.

    Tim Rowse has argued
    that the duality of policy aims, 'equality' and 'choice', has made program
    indicators difficult to interpret. [49] That is to say,
    Indigenous peoples may make certain choices that lead to lower than possible
    outcomes in terms of, for example, employment and resultant income levels.
    Consequently, it may be difficult to interpret results in terms of the
    efficacy of programs in addressing the disadvantage caused by the effects
    of historical disadvantage, structural constraints, and ongoing discrimination.
    The possible conflict between self-determining choices and equity of outcomes,
    as well as creating difficulties in interpreting data, clearly has implications
    for policy formulation processes and establishing targets.

    CAEPR evaluations
    of the Hawke Government's Aboriginal Employment Development Policy (AEDP),
    demonstrate some of these problems. For example, John Taylor, in a study
    of geographic location and Aboriginal economic status as reflected in
    the situation of outstations, concluded that, on the whole, remote location
    is reflected in lower economic status. [50] He noted
    a very high rate of 'unemployment' on outstations and also that outstation
    residents display far less tendency to have school-based skills. The dilemma
    in interpreting these outcomes is that outstations, rather than simply
    reflecting poorer outcomes, could instead be seen as a locational trade-off
    aimed at balancing a range of cultural, economic, social and political
    considerations. In respect of education, the question was whether policy
    was failing (in that outstation residents lacked schooling), or was succeeding
    in that people were enabled by land tenure and welfare polices to choose
    to live in outstations, even though at times these were far from jobs
    and schools.

    A related dilemma
    was considered by Jon Altman and Diane Smith in respect of high unemployment
    in remote localities - in this instance they noted that the statistical
    exclusion from the ranks of the employed of people participating in subsistence
    activities, and the failure to count their production as income-in-kind,
    skewed employment and income results. [51] They further
    noted that, paradoxically, if welfare income at outstations was classified
    as CDEP wages, then residents would immediately be reclassified as employed.
    They noted a further paradox that if such a reclassification occurred,
    those now understood to be 'employed' would be limited to low incomes
    - the AEDP goal of non-Indigenous and Indigenous income equality would
    be forfeited. They concluded that:

    Such a reclassification
    could mean that the goal of income equality may not be appropriate in
    the outstation context if people make a conscious choice to reside in
    locations that are remote from mainstream economic opportunities. [52]

    The issue of choice
    poses problems of appropriateness and interpretation. It may be that quantitative
    measures need to be supplemented by qualitative measures. This is in fact
    proposed, in the context of identifying the poor, in the OHCHR/UNDP Draft
    Guidelines on Poverty Alleviation (see above). In Guideline 1, it is noted
    that:

    Innovative mechanisms
    will have to be designed - probably using a combination of quantitative
    and qualitative methods - to elicit the necessary information in a cost-effective
    way.

    The Social Justice
    Report 2000
    also noted that 'the targets should be culturally appropriate'.[53]
    The Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation has made the point that there
    is concern that some of the targets and desired outcomes may be:

    Based on western
    assumptions about disadvantage and that they have limited cultural relevance
    to Indigenous peoples. Where this is the case, it may be unrealistic
    to expect full statistical equality to be achieved with the wider community,
    even in the long term. However, it would be wrong to describe as disadvantage
    those specific statistical differences that arise directly from cultural
    obligations and self-determination.[54]

    The CAEPR body of
    research is large, and a great deal of it is relevant to the issue of
    benchmarking reconciliation. It is not possible to summarise this body
    of research here. [55] Instead, some of the specific
    issues concerning monitoring and evaluation that have emerged in the course
    of CAEPR research are noted. These are:

    • 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'. [56]
      Policy evaluations demand attention to the particularities of regions
      and to evaluate employment outcomes the markets need to be differentiated.[57]

      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'. [58]

    • 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.[59] 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.[60]

    • 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.
      [61]

      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. [62] 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. [63] Gray, Hunter
      and Schwab hypothesized that it is not absolute improvement in Indigenous
      educational attainment that matters, but relative improvement as against
      other Australians.[64]

      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.[65]

    • 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,[66] and Taylor and Bell. [67]
      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.[68]

    5. The
    Commonwealth Grants Commission Report on Indigenous Funding

    In 1999 the Commonwealth
    Grants Commission (CGC) was set the task of developing methods of calculating
    the relative needs of Indigenous Australians in different regions for
    health, housing, infrastructure, education, training and employment services,
    to calculate indexes of need and compare the results with the actual distribution
    of expenditure on those functions. Thus the Terms of Reference were restricted
    to differences of need between groups of Indigenous people. The Report
    of the Inquiry was presented to the Government in March 2001.[69]
    However, many submissions to the Inquiry argued that addressing the large
    gap between Indigenous and non-Indigenous people was more important than
    redistributing existing funding.

    The Report takes
    a wide view of the issues involved in addressing Indigenous disadvantage,
    and contains considerable information and analysis concerning Indigenous
    funding issues. As the Social Justice Report 2000 noted:

    Despite the limitations
    imposed by the scope of the inquiry, the Commission's inquiry has been
    an important one, vividly demonstrating the value of an independent
    evaluative mechanism. [70]

    The Report noted
    that, given the entrenched levels of disadvantage experienced by Indigenous
    peoples in all functional areas addressed by the Inquiry, it would have
    been expected that Indigenous use of mainstream services would be at levels
    greater than those of non-Indigenous Australians. However, this was found
    not to be the case. Indigenous Australians in all regions access mainstream
    services at very much lower rates than non-Indigenous people. The inequities
    resulting from the low level of access to mainstream programs are compounded
    by the high levels of disadvantage experienced by Indigenous peoples.
    This also meant that specific programs for Indigenous peoples were carrying
    an additional burden of compensating for the lack of access to mainstream
    programs.

    The Report came to
    a number of conclusions and identified a range of suggestions to improve
    performance, including changes to existing Commonwealth-state arrangements
    by introducing and/or reinforcing additional conditions on Special Purpose
    Payments (SPPs) (see below), moving to insert regional needs-based allocation
    requirements into Indigenous specific SPPs; and seeking conditions on
    general SPPs to direct expenditure to aspects of services that are important
    to Indigenous peoples.

    The Report identified
    a number of important principles and key areas for action that should
    guide efforts to promote a better alignment of funding with needs. These
    include: [71]

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

    (ii) a focus on
    outcomes;

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

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

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

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

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

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

    • concerns with
      Census data;[72]
    • the difficulty
      of obtaining administrative data;[73]
    • 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. [74]

    The Government's
    response to the CGC Report was discussed in detail in chapter 3.[75]

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

    • First, the adoption
      of Principles for equitable provision of services to Indigenous peoples
      [76] to guide its approach to meeting the needs of
      Indigenous people;

    • 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; and

    • 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.

    6. Australian
    Bureau of Statistics

    The Australian Bureau
    of Statistics continues to be one of the most important sources of statistical
    information about Indigenous people and the results are used extensively
    by Indigenous communities and organisations and by governments. The release
    of the 2001 Census increases the amount of information available with
    data being provided through publications, Community Profiles and on the
    Internet. Relevant ABS information includes the following:

    • 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 sex; type of educational institution attending by Indigenous
      status by sex; highest level of schooling by Indigenous status by sex;
      language spoken at home and proficiency in spoken English by sex; computer
      use by Indigenous status by age by sex etc.

    • The Population
      Distribution of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders:

      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.

    In response to the
    need for Indigenous specific surveys, the planned ABS program for Indigenous
    statistics over the next eight years provides for the regular collection
    of survey data for a broad range of information requirements, and to respond
    to emerging issues, including the production of regional data. While the
    2001 National Health Survey included an Indigenous supplement, from 2004,
    and six-yearly thereafter, the survey will include a bigger sample and
    will provide national, state and territory estimates on some indicators
    of health status.

    The 2002 Indigenous
    Social Survey (ISS), to be conducted every six years, will provide both
    national and state/territory estimates that are relevant across sectors,
    including health, housing, education, employment, communication, transport,
    and crime and justice. The ISS objectives are to collect data on Australia's
    Indigenous population in order to explore issues such as levels of and
    barriers to participation in society, the extent to which people face
    multiple social disadvantages and measuring changes over time in Indigenous
    well-being. The ISS will collect a large amount of information in common
    with the 1994 NATSIS so that comparisons in the circumstances of Indigenous
    Australians can be analysed over time.

    The ABS will be releasing,
    as part of its Methodology Working Paper series, a Working Paper on the
    methodology behind the experimental index of Indigenous socio-economic
    disadvantage that was prepared under contract for the CGC (see above).
    Depending on feedback from that release, the ABS may consider updating
    the index using the results of the 2001 Census of Population and Housing,
    and consider incorporating additional data sets as they become available.

    In addition to improving
    the quality of information generally held in administrative systems accessed
    by Indigenous Australians, there is also a need to improve the identification
    of Indigenous clients in those systems. The ABS has published a standard
    for the identification of Indigenous people in administrative collections
    and 'best practice' guidelines for its implementation, and is now working
    across jurisdictions to increase the extent of Indigenous identification
    and improve the quality of the resulting data. Initial priority has been
    given to vital statistics but other data priorities include hospital separations,
    community services, cancer registries, perinatal collections, schools
    and vocational education and training, housing, and law and justice. The
    Government has committed to introducing an Indigenous identifier to Medicare
    and the public and community housing program funded through the Commonwealth
    State Housing Agreement.

    7. Initiatives
    at the inter-governmental level related to benchmarking

    In September 2002
    it was announced that the Commonwealth and Queensland Governments will
    work in partnership with the Cape York Indigenous communities to manage
    a 'whole-of-government' approach to federal and state Government services,
    as part of the 2002 COAG agreement to facilitate a co-ordinated approach
    in communities. The new arrangements will let a lead agency 'broker' the
    Commonwealth funding for each region, working closely with the community
    and state Government.

    The Department for
    Employment and Workplace Relations will take the lead role on behalf of
    the Commonwealth in Cape York. On 19 November 2002 the Commonwealth and
    Northern Territory Governments announced agreement that the Wadeye community
    will be the second site for COAG's 'whole-of-government' approach to improving
    the way governments work with Indigenous communities. The Commonwealth
    Department of Family and Community Services and the NT Department of Chief
    Minister will take the lead roles in coordinating government agencies
    and working with the Wadeye community. Other locations for the whole-of-government
    initiative will be determined by discussions between the Commonwealth,
    States and Territories and other Indigenous communities.

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

    • 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).

    8. The
    Steering Committee framework for reporting on Indigenous disadvantage

    In April 2002, COAG
    decided to commission the Steering Committee for the Review of Commonwealth/State
    Service Provision (SCRCSSP) to produce a regular report against key indicators
    of Indigenous disadvantage. The key task of the report 'will be to identify
    indicators that are of relevance to all governments and Indigenous stakeholders
    and that can demonstrate the impact of program and policy interventions'.
    [77]

    The Committee has
    now provided a draft framework for public comment. Following this, further
    consultations with Indigenous communities and other experts will occur
    to refine aspects of the framework. A diagram of the framework is shown
    in the box below. The framework has three logically related elements,
    working back from the priorities listed on the right side of the diagram.

    Box
    1: Draft framework for reporting on Indigenous disadvantage

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

    Priority outcomes

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

    • 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.[78]

    The framework then
    has a two tier set of indicators. These encompass 'headline indicators'
    of the higher order outcomes, and a second tier or 'strategic areas for
    policy' action. These emphasise the possible need for joint action within
    and across governments.

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

    • Individual capacities;
    • Material/economy;
    • Spiritual/cultural;
      and
    • Family and community.[79]

    These headline indicators
    are higher order outcomes that reflect the longer-term more targeted policy
    actions at the second tier. Collective improvements in the headline indicators
    should lead to benefits in the three priority outcomes. For example, an
    increase in life expectancy at birth and a decline in child sexual abuse
    would clearly contribute to the achievement of, for example, 'positive
    child development and prevention of violence, crime and self harm' (see
    Box below).

    Eight strategic areas
    for action have been identified (see the left-hand column of the Framework).
    For each of these strategic areas, a few key indicators ('strategic change
    indicators') have been developed with their potential sensitivity to government
    policies and programs in mind. These strategic change indicators are not
    intended to be comprehensive - it is not possible to incorporate into
    the framework all of the factors that influence outcomes for Indigenous
    people. The strategic areas for action have been chosen on the evidence
    that action in these areas is likely to have a significant, lasting impact
    in reducing Indigenous disadvantage. The rationale for choosing the eight
    areas is briefly described below:

    1. Early child
    development and growth (prenatal to age 3)

    Early
    child development can have significant effects on physical and mental
    health in childhood and adulthood, growth, language development and
    later educational attainment.

    2. Early school
    engagement and performance

    Early school engagement is important for establishing a foundation
    for educational achievement, retention in secondary schooling, opportunities
    in employment and minimising contact with the justice system later in
    life.

    3. Positive
    adolescence and transition to adulthood

    Participation in school and vocational education; and community,
    cultural and recreational activities, encourages self-esteem and a more
    positive basis for employment. Such participation also assists in avoiding
    contact with the justice system.

    4. Breaking
    the substance abuse cycle

    Abuse of alcohol and other substances affects later physical and
    mental health, family and community relationships and contact with the
    justice system. Tobacco use is the greatest single contributor to poor
    health outcomes.

    5. Functional
    and resilient families and communities

    Functional and resilient families and communities influence the
    physical and mental health of adults and children and contact with the
    justice system.

    Problems in families
    and communities can lead to breaks in schooling and education, disrupted
    social relationships and social alienation.

    6. Building
    on the strength of Indigenous culture

    A strong Indigenous culture provides a foundation for strong families
    and communities, economic development, self-determination and community
    resilience, reduced youth alienation and reduced self-harm and suicide.

    7. Functioning
    environmental health systems

    Clean water, adequate sewerage, housing and other essential infrastructure
    are important to physical well being and health, nutrition and physical
    development of children.

    8. Economic
    participation

    Having a job or being involved in a business activity not only
    leads to improved incomes for families and communities (which has a
    positive influence on health, education of children, etc) it also enhances
    self-esteem and reduces social alienation.

    The lack of data,
    or inability to collect them, can explain why some otherwise desirable
    indicators are not included. However, where data are not currently (or
    only partly) available, but the indicator is important enough, an indicator
    may still be included as an incentive to improve data quality.

    Box
    2: Why not agency or program specific indicators?

    While the
    indicators are sometimes associated with functional areas such as
    health or education, the indicators in this framework typically
    cover a number of sectors in terms of their impacts.

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

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

    Once the Framework
    has been finalised it will be submitted to COAG for agreement. A questionnaire
    has been circulated for the initial consultation stage, scheduled to finish
    by 15 November 2002, on the scheme outlined above. The questionnaire canvassed
    a number of basic questions about the Framework.

    9. Governance
    and capacity building

    Governance and capacity
    building are receiving increased scrutiny as representing the foundation
    of reconciliation, self-determination and realisation of rights. Governance
    is the expression of Indigenous peoples' demand for autonomy and for the
    right to take responsibility for their own lives. All levels of government
    need to acknowledge that facilitating Indigenous peoples' efforts to achieve
    such autonomy and improved Indigenous governance is vital to achieving
    improvements in Indigenous disadvantage and the recognition of Aboriginal
    and Torres Strait Islander rights. Government efforts need be focused
    on negotiating governance arrangements with Indigenous peoples, including
    through the provision of appropriate support (including technical support
    to build capacity, long term funding arrangements and legislative backing).

    The Commonwealth
    Grants Commission in its Report on Indigenous Funding, ATSIC in
    the Report on greater regional autonomy, and the House of Representatives
    Standing Committee on Family and Community Affairs report into Indigenous
    health all flag the development of mechanisms and structures for self-governance
    and greater regional autonomy as the next stage and natural progression
    from facilitating greater Indigenous participation.

    In this sense, governance
    has become central to the reconciliation agenda. The Social Justice
    Report 2000
    noted:

    The development
    of governance structures and regional autonomy provides the potential
    for a successful meeting place to integrate the various strands of reconciliation.
    In particular, it is able to tie together the aims of promoting recognition
    of Indigenous rights, with the related aims of overcoming disadvantage
    and achieving economic independence. [80]

    The Report notes
    that, unfortunately, during the reconciliation debate so far, there has
    been insufficient acknowledgement of the inter-related nature of these
    processes, which has been demonstrated by the failure to identify the
    crucial nature of recognising and building Aboriginal and Torres Strait
    Islander governance capacity to achieving these goals.[81]
    For example, the Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation's strategy for
    achieving economic independence focuses on how governments and peak private
    sector organisations can apply affirmative action and culturally sensitive
    initiatives. The strategy is more directed towards channeling private
    sector support into the development of Indigenous economic independence,
    in some instances with the encouragement of government agencies, rather
    than developing more economically viable Indigenous governance structures.

    A focus on governance
    and capacity building emphasises the need for greater coordination of
    services and the necessity for adopting a holistic approach to addressing
    Indigenous need. Importantly, it also allows for renewal of Indigenous
    societal structures which have been ignored, marginalised or rejected
    under protectionist and assimilationist policies. In April 2002 ATSIC
    Commissioner Alison Anderson reminded the Indigenous Governance Conference
    (sponsored by ATSIC and Reconciliation Australia) that:

    There is more than
    one system of law and governance in this land… it has been the
    continued and almost systematic attack upon our principles of governance
    which has caused so much damage to Aboriginal people.[82]

    In a similar vein
    Noel Pearson has emphasised the need to devolve Indigenous policy to the
    local level and away from the artificial constructs of 'communities':

    We need to devolve
    our emphasis from communities to families. We need to start at the basic
    building block of families, because Indigenous policy has been cast
    adrift in a community emphasis.[83]

    Pearson posits a
    four-point plan for developing a real economy for Aboriginal society on
    Cape York Peninsula in place of the 'passive welfare' paradigm that has
    plagued Indigenous governance since the 1970s. The four components of
    this plan are: access to the enjoyment of traditional subsistence resources;
    changing the nature of welfare programs to reciprocity programs; developing
    community economies; and engaging in the real market economy.[84]

    The plan bases the
    development of effective social partnerships in the creation of a regional
    governance structure (specifically in the context of the Cape York Peninsula)
    that re-engages Indigenous social structures and economic participation
    with the 'real economy'. Central to the plan is the notion of a 'partnership
    interface' between Aboriginal communities and organisations in Cape York
    Peninsula and Commonwealth and state governments, and ATSIC. Agreements
    would be made between government agencies and Indigenous representatives
    in regard to provision of resources (that is, all government 'inputs',
    such as funding, services and programs).

    The new emphasis
    on governance issues was reflected in the proceedings of the April Indigenous
    Governance Conference. The Conference heard of international experience
    with Indigenous governance. In particular, a considerable amount of research
    into Indigenous governance has been undertaken through the Harvard Project
    on American Indian Economic Development. The Harvard Project was represented
    at the Conference by Professor Cornell and Dr Manley Begay Jr of the Navajo
    nation.

    The aim of the Harvard
    Project was to discover the reasons why certain Indian nations had been
    able to break away from a century of poverty and powerlessness. The Conference
    paper reported on the critical role that self-governance has played in
    the changing fortunes of certain American Indian nations. Over the last
    quarter of a century, a number of American Indian nations have been unusually
    successful in building sustainable, self-determined economies. Perhaps
    the most striking aspect of The Harvard Project research results is the
    significance of self-governance in the accomplishments of these nations.
    Beginning in the 1970s, Indigenous nations in the United States have asserted
    increasing degrees of control over their own affairs, resources, development
    strategies, and governing structures. In the process, they have demonstrated
    the power of self-rule as a basis of community and economic development
    and as a vehicle for building societies that work.

    Several factors have
    been particularly important in what they have done. First, they have claimed
    and asserted the right to govern themselves and, in effect, have taken
    over control of much of their own affairs. Second, they have built effective
    governing institutions - that is, they have found ways to exercise power
    effectively in pursuit of their own objectives. In short, they govern
    well. Third, these governing institutions have paid attention to Indigenous
    political culture: to how their own peoples believe authority should be
    organised and exercised. And fourth, they have thought in strategic terms,
    moving away from crisis management and opportunism toward a set of long-term
    societal goals. These factors, taken together, constitute what the Project
    has come to call a nation-building process: putting in place the institutional
    foundations of effective self-governance.

    Fred Chaney, co-chair
    of Reconciliation Australia, provided the following 14 point summary of
    the main outcomes of the Governance Conference:

    1. Good governance
    requires communities which have genuine decision-making powers, as overwhelmingly
    confirmed by the evidence presented at the conference.

    2. The compelling
    evidence presented to the conference from local experiences and by the
    overseas contributors shows that sustained and measurable improvements
    in the social and economic well-being of Indigenous peoples only occurs
    when real decision-making power is vested in their communities, when
    they build effective governing institutions, and when the decision-making
    processes of these institutions reflect the cultural values and beliefs
    of the people.

    3. We need to
    avoid divisive and artificial arguments about terms such as sovereignty
    and focus on the underlying substance that people want real power to
    take real decisions and act on them.

    4. The examples
    presented to the conference demonstrate the value and relevance of customary
    law in dealing with contemporary problems and issues.

    5. It is clear
    that the primary push for good governance must come from the people
    themselves, using whatever tools and strategic opportunities are available.
    In other words, in the slogan much used at the conference, 'Just do
    it'.

    6. At the same
    time, it is crucial to develop skills and capacities in communities
    for people to effectively carry out the tasks of governance so that
    it delivers tangible benefits for communities and the people.

    7. It is also
    clear that governments have a critical role at the national, state,
    territory and regional levels. They must exercise that role firstly
    by understanding that communities need to be given the necessary powers,
    secondly by developing good public policy around this understanding,
    and finally by providing the necessary support and resources - for example,
    through block funding as outlined at the conference by Jack Ah Kit in
    relation to the Katherine West Health Board.

    8. Specifically,
    the recommendations of the Commonwealth Grants Commission's Report
    on Indigenous Funding 2001
    need to be seriously considered and actively
    debated, not buried or cherry-picked. We need to understand and use
    the information revealed in this report to ensure more appropriate allocation
    of funds by governments to compensate for Indigenous disadvantage. Although
    funding formulas take Indigenous disadvantage into account, they don't
    ensure that the resulting funds are directed to dealing with that disadvantage.

    9. It is essential
    to celebrate our successes and share knowledge so that good governance
    becomes an essential part of our everyday conversation.

    10. Another key
    element is transparent and accountable leadership committed to the welfare
    of the community rather than its own advancement.

    11. This raises
    the critical issue of how to best ensure the development of future leaders
    - especially young leaders - with all the skills to make these things
    happen.

    12. In developing
    Indigenous governance, we need to consider what our overseas participants
    have referred to as the separation of powers - distinguishing between
    a structure for setting goals and directions, one for carrying out the
    essential tasks, and yet another for settling disputes and ensuring
    that agreed rules are observed. For example, there might be a board
    or council which sets the policy, staff who implement the policy, and
    an independent body to resolve disputes through agreed procedures.

    13. It is important
    to employ people with appropriate skills and application, and with integrity.

    14. There is no
    single magic formula - no 'one size fits all' - in governance or economic
    development.

    In respect of point
    14, it is clear from a range of governance and autonomy arrangements that
    have significant achievements in terms of self determination and responsibility,
    that there is no single, 'one size fits all', model of governance for
    all situations. Examples of evolving governance models range from major
    regional arrangements, such as the Torres Strait Regional Authority, to
    local arrangements, such as the justice approach at Ali-Curung community
    in the Northern Territory, and a spread of situations in between. For
    example, Murdi Paaki in western NSW which has developed a model for regional
    planning underpinned with regional agreements to target better outcomes
    for service delivery, and the Katherine Health Care Trial has established
    a successful model of effective community participation and coordinated
    planning.

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

    • developing flexible
      funding arrangements with Indigenous organisations, 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.[85]

    10. Developments
    at State and Territory level

    The implementation
    of the reconciliation agenda of addressing Indigenous disadvantage takes
    place essentially at the state or territory level, although the three
    tiers of government are necessarily involved. Various state and territory
    governments are in the formative stages of adopting more coordinated,
    long term, whole-of-government strategies to Indigenous policy development
    and service delivery.

    As indicated above,
    whole-of-government approaches are now being implemented in Cape York
    and in the Wadeye community in the Northern Territory. A detailed range
    of state and territory initiatives currently in development is provided
    in Appendix 1 of this Report. Examples include:

    • 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/SA 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
    [86] signed in December
    2000 is part of this approach. The objective of the Justice Agreement
    is to reduce Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander over-representation
    in the criminal justice system. The Agreement originates in the 1997 National
    Ministerial Summit, where Indigenous community representatives met with
    Commonwealth and state Ministers for justice, police, corrective services
    and Aboriginal Affairs. In Queensland, the Justice Agreement is the result,
    fulfilling in part the resolution of the 1997 Summit.

    The Justice Agreement
    in turn is part of the Ten Year Partnership which aims to improve living
    standards of Indigenous Queenslanders over the next 10 years. The Ten
    Year Partnership's objective is to see the Queensland Government coordinate
    its activities more effectively and put in place new ways of measuring
    progress. This is intended to reduce duplication and confusion for Indigenous
    communities who have to deal with a range of different government departments.

    The Cape York Partnerships
    [87] is an example of the types of partnerships that
    can be developed. Cape York Partnerships involves Indigenous organisations
    in Cape York, in conjunction with the Queensland Premier and Cabinet,
    in merging service providers into one interface, at a community level.
    This interface revolves around 'partnerships negotiation tables', so that
    individual communities can directly address senior government staff with
    the community's priorities and aspirations, and facilitate a direct line
    of responsibility from community level to senior government level. The
    Premier, Mr Beattie, places initiatives such as Cape York Partnerships
    clearly in the context of reconciliation. Of the partnership, he has said:

    Cape York Partnerships
    is about changing the way Government and communities work together.
    Cape York Partnerships does not rely on sweeping statements of good
    intentions or obvious need. This is no longer relevant. We want to concentrate
    on a range of immediate and practical strategies and commitments.[88]

    The Ten Year Partnership
    has identified eight key areas for action and has proposed outcomes for
    each area. In terms of the area of justice, the outcome sought is a demonstrated
    continuing reduction in the number of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander
    peoples coming into contact with the Queensland criminal justice system,
    so that the rate of contact is reduced to at least the same rate as that
    of other Queenslanders. The 10 year objective (that is by 2011) is a 50
    percent reduction in the rate of Indigenous Queenslanders incarcerated
    in prisons or youth detention centers. Outcome indicators are identified
    at the broad level (for which data is already available), and also at
    the more detailed level (where current data may be deficient). An annual
    report is to be prepared and there is to be an independent evaluation
    every three years. The Agreement acknowledges that significant gaps exist
    in relevant criminal justice data, and provides mechanisms for improved
    data collection.

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

    Part 2:
    Incorporating human rights into benchmarking reconciliation

    The previous section
    has provided an outline of a significant range of measures that are relevant
    to benchmarking reconciliation in an international and domestic context.
    This material was the basis of discussion over two days at the workshop
    that I convened on 28-29 November 2002.

    The workshop proceeded
    with an overview of the issues discussed in part one of this chapter,
    and particularly with an overview of the Draft framework for reporting
    on Indigenous disadvantage
    prepared by the Steering Committee for
    the Review of Commonwealth/State Service Provision (SCRCSSP). The participants
    then considered the following issues over the course of the workshop:

    • Indigenous
      participation in benchmarking
      . How to ensure adequate Indigenous
      participation in the setting and monitoring of benchmarks and indicators;

    • Australia's
      obligations to progressively realise economic, social and cultural rights
      .
      How to ensure that Australia's human rights obligations to progressively
      realise the equal enjoyment of economic, social and cultural rights
      are reflected in monitoring frameworks and are being met.

    • Statistics.
      How to ensure that statistical collection is adequate to support the
      measuring of Indigenous disadvantage and the monitoring of progress
      for its progressive realisation.

    • Building Indigenous
      community capacity and governance
      . How to ensure that the objective
      of community capacity building and strengthening and supporting Indigenous
      governance is integrally linked to processes for addressing Indigenous
      disadvantage.

    • The draft
      indicative framework for measuring Indigenous disadvantage
      , as prepared
      by the Steering Committee. In light of the previous discussion, an opportunity
      was provided to discuss the detail of the proposed indicative framework.

    This section reports
    on the discussion of these issues at the benchmarking workshop. The discussions
    were wide-ranging and raise more questions than they answer. The broader
    implications of the workshop's discussions for benchmarking are then discussed
    in the concluding comments of this chapter.

    1) Indigenous
    participation in benchmarking

    The Workshop considered
    four key issues in respect of benchmarking reconciliation. The question
    posed for the session dealing with the first issue, Indigenous participation
    in benchmarking, was:

    How can it be ensured
    that Indigenous participation in setting priorities, identifying targets,
    developing benchmarks, monitoring performance and evaluating programs
    is effective, culturally appropriate and truly reflects Indigenous aspirations
    rather than those of the wider community?

    It was noted that,
    other than through ATSIC, there appeared to be little knowledge in the
    Indigenous community of the current developments to establish indicators
    to report on outcomes of government strategies and programs. To virtually
    exclude the Indigenous community from participation in the development
    of strategies and benchmarks runs the risk of further entrenching dependency
    and compounding the public policy failure of the last 30 years.

    In considering Indigenous
    participation, reference was made to the concept of 'cultural match' adopted
    by the Harvard Project in the United States.[89] This
    Project identified the significance of self-governance in those Indian
    nations that had been successful and self-determining. In turn, successful
    Indigenous governing institutions were seen to have be those that had
    developed with close attention paid to Indigenous political culture, that
    is how their own people believe authority should be organised and exercised.

    The tendency was
    noted for people to suggest that Indigenous peoples having a role in service
    delivery to meet their communities is interpreted as 'special rights'.
    It was suggested that a concept of equality that focuses not on equality
    in process but on whether there is equal protection is a more appropriate
    way of viewing the issues. The equality sought should lie in the equality
    of protection of rights rather than simple equality of outcomes.

    There was considerable
    discussion on the distinction between merely consulting with Indigenous
    people, as opposed to negotiating and agreeing issues in partnership with
    them. It was widely accepted that there is a need for Indigenous involvement
    in setting performance frameworks at all stages - that is the beginning
    of the process as well as at the end. In this context questions were raised
    as to the extent that Indigenous peoples may be able to influence the
    decision-making process in respect of indicators and benchmarks. That
    is, are the parameters to be set by government, and are Indigenous people
    only being asked to respond or confirm in the restricted sense of 'consultation'.
    Is there to be a role for negotiation? The importance of there being some
    Indigenous control over decision-making, rather than merely providing
    a confirmation of an already made decision, was stressed. There is a need
    to determine if the process of consultation is one to simply 'capture'
    information, rather than a process aimed at facilitating participation
    and shared decision-making.

    While one participant
    pointed to the large investment in resources and time that would be required
    for a proper consultation process, it was pointed out in response that
    national or peak Indigenous bodies exist for particular areas of concern
    and that they could be appropriate intermediate bodies for consultation
    and negotiation.

    Further concerns
    about the consultation process were raised in terms of who can actually
    represent Indigenous views. It was pointed out that some structures that
    have been put in place to represent Indigenous views, such as community
    councils in Queensland, may not in fact be representative of Indigenous
    views.

    Regarding Indigenous
    participation, the workshop identified the importance of having principles
    to underpin negotiation and consultation. Recommendation 12 of the Social
    Justice Report 2000
    was noted, which proposed that the federal Government
    and COAG adopt the Principles for Indigenous social justice and the
    development of relations between the Commonwealth Government and Aboriginal
    and Torres Strait Islander Peoples
    as proposed by ATSIC in Recognition,
    rights and reform
    , as forming the framework for negotiations about
    service delivery arrangements, regional governance and unfinished business.

    A number of best
    practice models for consultation with Indigenous peoples were identified
    by participants. These included the longer term, open ended and localised
    approach of the Stronger Families package, [90] as well
    as the process engaged in by the Commonwealth Grants Commission for the
    Indigenous funding Inquiry.[91]

    Generally though
    it was noted that current approaches to consultation are often inadequate,
    opaque and selective in their approach. In this context, concerns were
    raised that the Draft framework for reporting on Indigenous disadvantage
    does not reflect an Indigenous perspective. The decision-making process
    about the framework, as distinct from any consultations undertaken, is
    non-Indigenous at all stages. There needs to be some way of ensuring Indigenous
    peoples are at the table in negotiating the structure of the Draft framework.
    Otherwise, the process will be seen as a classic government approach -
    the agenda already decided, and no space for other ideas to be brought
    forward.

    Given the concerns
    expressed about the adequacy of consultation and negotiation with Indigenous
    interests over the Draft framework, the question was asked: why are we
    having benchmarks and indicators? There is a fundamental consultation
    and negotiation problem here and the risk is of continuing cynicism and
    frustration on the part of Indigenous people. There needs to be an acknowledgement
    that as a result of the Mabo decision and native title, the framework
    for negotiation with Indigenous people has changed. Indigenous people
    should be at the negotiating table as of right.

    2) Progressive
    realisation of economic, social and cultural rights

    The question posed
    for this session of the workshop was, in the context of achieving progressive
    realisation of economic, social and cultural rights, how to ensure a long
    term perspective in the design and implementation of programs and services
    so that goals can be set with a degree of security. In respect of ensuring
    a long term perspective, the workshop was asked:

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

    The difficulty of
    overcoming Indigenous disadvantage within short term timeframes was broadly
    agreed. It was noted that there is a need to develop longer term funding
    cycles and that long term objectives cannot run in parallel with an approach
    focused only on short term projects, trials etc. Short and medium term
    objectives should be consistent with and build towards long term objectives.
    Governmental perspectives need to be longer than the electoral cycle.
    Many areas of disadvantage, for example education, are simply not susceptible
    to short term solutions.

    Long term planning
    can in fact coexist with shorter term activities, where the long term
    planning (say 25 years) is broken up into shorter parts (projects and
    programs). That is, the human rights requirement or obligation is to take
    steps, in the context of progressive realisation. However, the steps must
    be targeted, and contribute to the longer term objectives.The objective
    of greater matching of funding with needs was also noted. Statewide housing
    agreements/block funding/comprehensive regional agreements were seen as
    attempts to move to longer term planning horizons.

    A key matter identified
    was the outcomes of government programs and expenditure. Given the resources
    expended, outcomes to date have been disappointing. Indeed, concerns were
    expressed that the extent of unmet need may actually be growing in some
    areas.

    The question of control
    over funding is important and concerns were expressed at current funding
    arrangements, and the lack of control by and involvement of Indigenous
    people in funding-related decision-making processes. This lack of control
    is exemplified by native title. Although native title is an entitlement,
    the approach to native title funding does not reflect this. Prescribed
    Bodies Corporate act in trust or as agent for native title holders following
    a determination of title. They are a legal requirement and are set up
    under the provisions of Native Title Act, yet they are not funded. Overall,
    it was felt that it is necessary to facilitate greater Indigenous involvement
    in funding decisions.

    3) Statistics

    As the development
    of benchmarks and indicators is based on the use, analysis and interpretation
    of statistics, a session was devoted to this topic. Discussion was wide-ranging.

    Concern was expressed
    that Indigenous people have been 'over researched' and statistics have
    been misrepresented and used against them. This results in a degree of
    cynicism and mistrust and is a significant issue in respect of developing
    indicators and benchmarks. Indigenous people need to be confident that
    statistics are being used properly and in particular that appropriate
    benchmarks are being set. Indigenous people should participate in these
    matters.

    There are difficulties
    with obtaining information to enable identification of Indigenous service
    users, including sensitivity and privacy. However, this identification
    provides key data for a number of indicators. Training is needed for staff
    of agencies and organisation in collecting this data. There is in general
    a need to educate, train and enable Indigenous people about the use of
    statistics so that statistics can be fully utilised in addressing Indigenous
    disadvantage, including by Indigenous organisations to support proposals
    and submissions for additional resources.

    There are significant
    deficiencies in data collections, including the lack of consistent data
    over a sufficient time period to enable adequate comparison. These deficiencies
    need to be addressed as a matter of priority to ensure validity and credibility
    in the development and use of indicators. There is also a need to get
    data as accurate as possible on a regional basis. National statistics
    do not reflect the wide variety of Indigenous circumstances. Statistics
    along a regional basis (perhaps based on ATSIC regions) can be more important.

    Statistical benchmarks
    in respect of employment (for example, does the Community Development
    Employment Program - CDEP - measure employment or does it disguise unemployment?),
    and housing, where different use patterns may mean that definitions of
    what constitutes households may be at variance with mainstream understandings,
    are problematic in designing indicators and analysing data. Interpretation
    of statistics may be difficult across a number of indicators. There is
    a tendency for statistics to evaluate Indigenous well-being from a mainstream
    approach. Indicators may not adequately reflect issues such as participation
    in traditional economies. Meanings and values may differ between Indigenous
    and non-Indigenous populations rendering statistical analysis value-laden
    and potentially misleading. These matters need to be addressed in developing
    indicators.

    In response to these
    concerns, the idea was raised of whether it is possible to build in to
    indicators and benchmarks a subjective element. How do Indigenous people
    perceive their disadvantage? For example, this could be done by surveying
    Indigenous people for their views on what they need as communities and
    families - such an approach would be constitutive of 'effective partnership'.

    The type of statistics
    can be divided into classifications: census data; administrative data,
    and expenditure data. There are problems with interpretation of census
    data, including the issue of the growth of the Indigenous population according
    to the Census. Administrative data includes the extent to which Indigenous
    people use services - benchmarks are needed on the scope and quality of
    administrative data, which currently has many gaps and is inconsistent
    between jurisdictions. With expenditure data it is important to identify
    expenditure on Indigenous people.

    It was suggested
    that ATSIC could strengthen its advocacy role by increasing its analysis
    and use of statistics. However, there is a problem with ATSIC getting
    access to relevant statistics (for example in the area of Aboriginal Health
    Services).

    4) Building
    Indigenous governance and capacity building into benchmarking

    The discussion of
    governance matters proved quite difficult, possibly reflecting the relative
    lack attention that has been given to such matters in developing the Draft
    framework for reporting on Indigenous disadvantage
    in a climate of
    'practical reconciliation'. The discussion indicated that there is a degree
    of ambiguity as to what people mean by terms such as governance and capacity
    building.

    The question posed
    to the Workshop was:

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

    Suggestions were
    made about the need to be able to match cultural requirements with management
    requirements, about the importance of communities developing the capacity
    to consult and conduct negotiations, and about the need to develop the
    necessary infrastructure to support decision-making. The Harvard Project
    was noted as relevant to this issue because of its findings on the importance
    of effective Indigenous governance in achieving economic, social and cultural
    progress.

    It was argued that
    the operation of the Aboriginal Councils and Associations Act is problematic
    in terms of delivering good Indigenous governance and it appeared to have
    led to a plethora of Aboriginal organisations. If so, was this wasteful
    of resources? It was argued that the problem of too many organisations
    is created in part by the grant application process, and the consequent
    need to be incorporated to get funding.

    Reference was made
    to the summary made by Fred Chaney, co-chair of Reconciliation Australia,
    of the outcomes of the Indigenous Governance Conference held in April
    2002. In particular, two paragraphs of the summary were noted:

    Paragraph 5
    noting that it is clear that the primary push for good governance must
    come from the people themselves, using whatever tools and strategic
    opportunities are available. In the words of the slogan much used at
    the conference, 'Just do it'.

    Paragraph 6
    noted that, at the same time, it is crucial to develop skills and capacities
    in communities for people to effectively carry out the tasks of governance
    so that it delivers tangible benefits for communities and people.

    The point at issue
    accordingly becomes how does that critical link between the two aspects,
    governance and capacity, get made. It was suggested that an important
    factor, at this stage, may be for work to be done to identify 'presence
    and absence factors' - i.e., identifying what capacity is missing in communities
    as well as what is in place.

    A key concern from
    the benchmarking reconciliation perspective was how governance and capacity
    building become integral to the strategic indicators framework.

    5) Discussion
    of the Steering Committee's draft framework for reporting on Indigenous
    disadvantage

    Following discussion
    of the issues referred to above, the workshop returned to its consideration
    of the Draft framework for reporting on Indigenous disadvantage developed
    by the Steering Committee under COAG.

    The Chair of the
    Steering Committee noted that the framework seeks to avoid a 'silo' approach
    whereby issues are sorted into bureaucratic bundles. It is intended to
    be holistic in its intent. While the indicators are sometimes associated
    with functional areas such as health or education, the indicators in this
    framework typically cover a number of sectors in terms of their impacts.

    It was also noted
    that the Steering Committee has formed an Indigenous Working Group for
    the process of developing the framework. The Working Group is comprised
    of central agencies from all levels of government including ATSIC; MCATSIA;
    the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (AIHW); the Australian
    Bureau of Statistics (ABS) and Australian Local Government Association
    (ALGA). In respect of consultation on the Draft framework, the consultation
    process has been devolved to each state and territory who have provided
    reports on their consultations (with Victoria and Tasmania yet to report).
    The Steering Committee itself has then conducted additional consultations.

    Feedback on the framework
    to that time had shown broad support for the Draft framework. There is
    support for the whole-of-government approach and the focus on outcomes.
    A number of government agencies have indicated that they see the framework
    as synergistic to what they are doing. The Steering Committee noted that
    it needed further guidance on the inclusion of 'spiritual and cultural
    indicators' within the framework. A strong reaction has been that these
    may be too problematic, although they are matters which are at the same
    time fundamental to Indigenous well-being. Another matter requiring further
    consideration is how to measure indicators concerning decision-making,
    self-determination and autonomy.

    The Steering Committee
    noted that the following concerns had been raised in consultations on
    the framework:

    • the framework
      may be too sterile and requires qualitative contextual discussion;

    • it may become
      an 'annual misery index' focusing on problems rather than positive developments;

    • there are significant
      problems with data availability and statistical collection;

    • there are problems
      of differentiation between population groups (eg urban/remote) - 'one
      size fits all' indicators may not be appropriate; and

    • concern at how
      the reporting process of the framework will be tied to other processes
      in respect of policy and planning (in this regard, the question is whether
      there should be a third tier of indicators which is tied to service
      delivery. However, it has been suggested that this aspect could be appropriately
      covered under the Ministerial Action Plans reporting processes).

    In terms of the future
    development of the Draft framework, it was noted that while the first
    step is the approval of COAG for the framework, this would not see the
    Draft framework as being inflexible or unable to be changed in the future.
    It will require a process of continuous improvement.

    A number of suggestions
    and comments were made on the Draft framework in the workshop.

    It was noted that
    the framework is stripped of any Indigenous specific content. The concern
    was expressed that the framework does not seek to include in its measurements
    of progress the extent to which services may be culturally appropriate,
    and involves Indigenous peoples in design and delivery.

    A second related
    concern was the need to ensure that Indigenous participation and decision-making
    are reflected in and measured by the strategic indicators, and that, in
    particular, the framework incorporates and seeks to measure the goal of
    capacity building in Indigenous communities.

    Measures of accessibility
    to services need to be reflected in the indicators (including in urban
    settings). Concern was also expressed that some of the draft indicators,
    for example measurements of building healthy communities and families,
    tend to focus on negative measurements (crime, abuse etc) rather than
    capacity building. In this respect, for example, the prominence given
    to child sexual abuse in the first tier 'headline' indicators appears
    to be indicative of a negative emphasis in the indicators, rather than
    a balance between negative results and positive developments in building
    the capacity of families and communities to function in a supportive and
    caring way.

    Some participants
    felt that the construction of the indicators in this way perhaps indicated
    a lack of appropriate consultation and negotiation with Indigenous communities.

    In a similar context,
    the relationship between the first and second tier indicators is not always
    clear. There was a concern that the indicators may reflect insufficient
    research or a failure to consult widely enough to obtain representative
    views of Indigenous peoples and communities.

    A key concern with
    the Draft framework was the apparent failure to measure involvement in
    the subsistence economy and traditional activities as against the market
    economy. The importance of subsistence and traditional activities does
    not appear to be represented in the indicators and this would potentially
    skew the results, particularly against remote and outstation communities.

    It was suggested
    that there is also a need to 'audit' existing commitments and measurements
    at the state and territory level to identify whether the Draft framework
    could build on already existing commitments. For example, it was noted
    that the Queensland Ten Year Partnership has a range of measurements for
    justice outcomes that may be appropriate or applicable to the draft Framework's
    attempt to measure similar outcomes. It was noted, for example, that the
    Queensland model uses a headline indicator of over-representation in corrections,
    but also notes a range of supporting indicators that contribute to this
    outcome such as changes in the percentage of Indigenous people who are
    given bail rather than remanded in custody; use of arrest rather than
    cautioning by police etc.

    This is a technical
    issue that will need attention. Even though the Draft framework does not
    purport to establish targets, consistency of data sets will be important,
    and analysing why a target has or has not been met is a similar exercise
    to interpreting progress against the strategic indicators of the Draft
    framework.

    Conclusion
    - Where to from here?

    The Workshop and
    preparatory material raises a number of serious concerns from a human
    rights perspective about the current development of indicators and benchmarks
    in respect of Indigenous disadvantage. There are five main concerns identified
    by the workshop.

    First, the current
    draft framework for reporting on Indigenous disadvantage appears to have
    been developed with little reference to human rights standards, to Australia's
    international obligations, or to relevant international experience. Perhaps
    reflecting an emphasis on 'practical reconciliation', the Draft framework
    consequently fails to develop a series of indicators of Indigenous socio-economic
    disadvantage within a rights framework.

    The Draft framework
    should be further reviewed against human rights criteria. Such a review
    needs to be informed by international standards and current international
    developments. Specific reference should particularly be made to the Draft
    Guidelines on Poverty Alleviation developed by the UNDP and the UN Office
    of the High Commissioner for Human Rights.

    My office will continue
    to discuss these issues with the Steering Committee to seek to ensure
    that the human rights dimension of benchmarking reconciliation is understood
    and able to be built into the Draft framework.

    Second, serious concerns
    were also expressed about the failure of the proposed indicators to adequately
    reflect Indigenous governance and capacity-building objectives. These
    matters require urgent attention before the Draft framework is approved
    by COAG. Given the apparent commitment to these issues by the federal
    Government, this is a test of the extent to which it is actually prepared
    to negotiate and enter into partnerships with Indigenous communities.

    Third, the present
    failure of the indicators to reflect traditional and subsistence economic
    activity and production is a major concern. It is likely to skew results
    against remote and outstation communities. Urgent attention needs to be
    given to the literature and research on these matters, including the work
    of CAEPR, and subsistence production and activity needs to be accommodated
    in the indicators.

    Fourth, the Draft
    framework intends to provide a reporting tool on a national basis. However,
    it needs also to be able to be disaggregated to a sufficient level to
    provide meaningful and realistic results as a guide to policy review and
    formulation. The ability to disaggregate results on a regional basis would
    appear to be a high priority (perhaps by ATSIC region). Consultation with
    the Commonwealth Grants Commission and ATSIC may be appropriate.

    Fifth, considerable
    concern was evident at the Workshop about the level and nature of consultation
    to date with Indigenous representatives, organisations and communities
    about the Draft framework, including the tight deadlines prevailing and
    whether the consultation has been wide and/or representative enough. There
    is the possibility that the Draft framework, rather than being perceived
    as a positive tool for partnership between governments and Indigenous
    peoples, will be met with suspicion and distrust, and seen as yet another
    government contrivance thrust upon Indigenous society.

    To ensure that the
    Draft framework is seen as a positive step towards reconciliation based
    on an effective partnership between government and Indigenous Australians,
    it would appear important at this stage to ensure that ATSIC and other
    relevant Indigenous peak bodies are brought fully into the consultation
    and negotiation loop, as a matter of priority.

    These are significant
    issues that must be addressed. The Steering Committee framework though,
    must be acknowledged as a significant development. It is in fact the only
    positive form of monitoring and evaluation that the Government has provided
    for practical reconciliation. The overarching concern however is that
    if constructed and too narrowly focused on practical reconciliation, to
    the exclusion of other important factors it could be co-opted as a political
    tool for reinforcing and legitimising what is ultimately a limited approach
    to Indigenous issues.

    Care must be taken,
    however, to ensure that the Steering Committee framework is not seen as
    a panacea or as intended to fulfill the monitoring role across the full
    range of issues. In my view, the greatest deficiency in this process is
    not the draft indicative framework per se but the fact that it currently
    exists in isolation from any other form of performance monitoring, particularly
    on identifying progress on important goals such as capacity building and
    governance reform, as well as identifying the unmet need and accordingly
    whether policy approaches are moving forward or in fact regressing.

    This raises significant
    challenges for ATSIC and peak Indigenous organisations in housing, health
    and other areas. There needs to be attention to understanding the implications
    of the indicative framework, as well as the Productivity Commission's
    report on government services, so that this significant statistical material
    can be used to underlie policy formulation and debate.

    As part of its current
    restructure and review processes, ATSIC should consider whether at the
    national and regional level they have the capability and capacity to conduct
    the level of statistical analysis and research that is needed to capitalise
    on these developments.

    The proposed framework
    also has implications for organisations such as the Centre for Aboriginal
    Economic Policy Research and the Menzies School of Health Research to
    name but two. Those organisations with the expertise to analyse this material
    should prioritise its use to ensure that their output is as policy relevant
    as possible.

    The Steering Committee's
    framework is a significant institutional development in measuring progress
    for Indigenous peoples. It is a partial measure, however, and needs to
    be built on with other processes and analysis.


    1
    Note: The full version of the issues paper and all background materials
    prepared for the workshop, a list of participants and the full workshop
    report are available online. See www.humanrights.gov.au/social_justice/.
    I thank Greg Marks for writing and researching the issues paper and preparing
    the report of the workshop on which this chapter is based.

    2
    See, for example, Davidson, B and Jennett, C, Addressing Disadvantage
    - A Greater Awareness of the Causes of Indigenous Australians' Disadvantage
    ,
    Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation (CAR); CAR and the Centre for Aboriginal
    Economic Policy Research (CAEPR), Overview Paper, prepared for the 'Towards
    a Benchmarking framework for service delivery to Indigenous Australians
    Workshop November 1998'; CAR, Appendix 2 Statistics of social and economic
    well-being
    ,in Overcoming Disadvantage, CAR, Canberra, 2000.

    3
    See, for example, Pearson, N, The Light on the Hill, Ben Chifley
    Memorial Lecture 12 August 2000 at www.capeyorkpartnerships.com; Sutton,
    P, The Politics of Suffering: Indigenous Policy Failure in Australia
    Since the Seventies
    , March 2001. Revised version of the Inaugural
    Berndt Foundation Biennial Lecture September 2000; Trugden, R, Why
    Warriors Lie Down and Die
    , ARDS, Darwin, 2000.

    4
    Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights: Concluding Observations:
    Australia 01/09/2000
    , UN Doc: E/C.12/1/add.50, 1 September 2000, paragraph
    15.

    5
    Hunter, B, 'Three nations, not one; Indigenous and other Australian poverty',
    CAEPR Working Paper No.1/1999, Canberra, 1999. Available on line at www.anu.edu.au/caepr.

    6
    Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody, National Report,
    AGPS, Canberra, 1991.

    7
    ibid, Volume 1 para 1.3.1-1.3.3

    8
    ibid, p15.

    9
    Quoted in Commonwealth Grants Commission, Report on Indigenous Funding
    2001
    , Canberra, 2001, p89.

    10
    ATSIC, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples and Australia's
    Obligations under the United Nations International Covenant on Economic,
    Social and Cultural Rights
    , ATSIC, Canberra, 2000, p39.

    11
    Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation, Australia's Challenge, CAR,
    Canberra, 2000.

    12
    Social Justice Report 2000, p100.

    13
    ibid, pp 130-132.

    14
    See ATSIC, Recognition, rights and reform: Report to Government on
    native title social justice measures
    , Canberra, ATSIC, 1995, pp 9-10.

    15
    Howard, J, Council of Australian Governments communiqué,
    media release, 3 November 2000.

    16
    Social Justice Report 2001, p25.

    17
    ibid, pp 219-220.

    18
    Senate Legal and Constitutional Committee, Inquiry into Progress Towards
    National Reconciliation
    at www.aph.gov.au/senate/committee/legcon_ctte/reconciliation/index.htm.

    19
    Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (CESCR), General
    Comment 3: The nature of States parties obligations
    , Contained in
    UN Doc: E/1991/23, 14/12/90.

    20
    ibid, para 1.

    21
    ibid, para 2.

    22
    ibid, para 4.

    23
    ibid, para 9.

    24
    ibid, para 10.

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

    26
    ibid, para 1.

    27
    ibid, para 7.

    28
    ibid, para 8(g).

    29
    Commenting on discussion about resourcing outstations on Cape York, David
    Martin (Centre for Aboriginal Economic Policy Research) has stated: 'It's
    not a matter of pouring vast extra sums of money into building suburban
    houses in remote locations. It's about providing the means for people
    to exercise initiative, move into situations where they can feel more
    in control of their lives and then building from that.' ABC News feature,
    Homelands sweet home, October 30 2002.

    30
    CESCR, General Comment No. 14 (2000): The Right to the highest attainable
    standard of health
    , UN Doc: E/C.12/2000/4, 11/08/2000.

    31
    For example, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights Article 25.1, ICERD,
    Article 5 (e) (iv), Convention on the Rights of the Child (CROC) Article
    24.

    32
    CESCR, General Comment No. 14 (2000): The Right to the highest attainable
    standard of health
    , op cit, para 11.

    33
    ibid, para 27.

    34
    United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), Human Development Report
    2000 - Human rights and human development
    , UNDP, New York, 2000. www.undp.org/hdro/HDR2000.html.

    35
    High Commissioner for Human Rights and UNDP, Draft Guidelines on Poverty
    Alleviation
    , OHCHR, Geneva, 2002.

    36
    UNDP, World Development Report 2000, op cit, p89.

    37
    ibid, p108.

    38
    ibid, p49.

    39
    ibid, p90.

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

    41
    ibid, para 18.

    42
    ibid, para 24.

    43
    These considerations are also directly relevant to the current redrafting
    by the Federal Government of Australia's National Action Plan on Human
    Rights. National Action Plans are lodged with the UNHCHR as a statement
    to the international community of how a country is progressing in implementing
    human rights in a practical sense. The previous Australian Plan was drawn
    up in 1997.

    44
    Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation and Centre for Aboriginal Economic
    Policy Research, Towards a benchmarking framework for service delivery
    to Indigenous Australians
    , Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra, 1998,
    p4.

    45
    ATSIC, op cit, para 1.8.

    46
    ibid.

    47
    ibid.

    48
    ibid, p7.

    49
    See Rowse, T, op cit, p8.

    50
    Taylor, J, 'Geographic location and Aboriginal economic status: A Census-based
    analysis of outstations in Australia's Northern Territory', CAEPR Discussion
    Paper 8, CAEPR, Canberra, 1991, p27.

    51
    Altman, J C and Smith, D E, 'Estimating the Reliance of Aboriginal Australians
    on welfare: Some policy implications', CAEPR Discussion Paper 19, CAEPR,
    Canberra, 1992.

    52
    ibid, p20.

    53
    Social Justice Report 2000, p103.

    54
    CAR, Overcoming disadvantage, op cit.

    55
    Rowse, T, op cit, provides a critical overview of the work of CAEPR
    during its first decade.

    56
    Taylor, J, Regional Change in the Economic Status of Indigenous Australians,
    1986-9, CAEPR Research Monograph 5, CAEPR, Canberra, 1993.

    57
    Rowse, T, op cit, pp32, 35.

    58
    High Commissioner for Human Rights and UNDP, Draft Guidelines on Poverty
    Alleviation
    , op cit, Guideline 1, para 50.

    59
    Taylor, J and Altman, J, The Job Ahead: Escalating Economic Costs of
    Indigenous Employment Disparity
    , ATSIC, Canberra, 1997.

    60
    Taylor, J and Hunter, B, The Job Still Ahead, ATSIC, Canberra,
    1998.

    61
    Hunter, B, 'Three nations, not one: Indigenous and other Australian poverty',
    op cit.

    62
    Hunter, B, Kennedy, S and Biddle, N, 'One size fits all? The effect of
    equivalence scales on Indigenous economic and other poverty' CAEPR Working
    Paper No. 19, CAEPR, Canberra, 2002.

    63
    Daly, A E, 'The participation of Aboriginal people in the Australian labour
    market', CAEPR Discussion Paper 6, CAEPR, Canberra, 1991.

    64
    Gray, M, Hunter, B and Schwab, R G, 'A critical survey of Indigenous education
    outcomes 1986-1996' CAEPR Discussion Paper 208, CAEPR, Canberra, 1998.

    65
    Schwab, R G, 'Having it "both ways": The continuing complexities
    of community-controlled Indigenous education' CAEPR Discussion paper 111,
    CAEPR, Canberra, 1996.

    66
    Gray, A, 'The explosion of Aboriginality: Components of Indigenous population
    growth 1991-96', CAEPR Discussion Paper 142, CAEPR, Canberra, 1997; 'Growth
    of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander population, 1991-2001 and
    beyond', CAEPR Discussion Paper 150, CAEPR, Canberra, 1997.

    67
    Taylor, J and Bell, M, 'Estimating intercensal Indigenous employment change,
    1991-96', CAEPR Discussion Paper 155, CAEPR, Canberra, 1998.

    68
    Martin, D F, Morphy F, Sanders W G and Taylor J, Making Sense of the
    Census: Observations of the 2001 Enumeration in Remote Aboriginal Australia
    ,
    CAEPR Research Monograph No. 22, CAEPR, Canberra, 2002.

    69
    Commonwealth Grants Commission, op cit.

    70
    Social Justice Report 2000, p102.

    71
    CGC, op cit, ppxviii-xix.

    72
    ibid, pp14-15.

    73
    For example, the Report notes that mortality data are not reliable at
    the ATSIC regional level and are only reliable at all in three States
    - WA, SA and the NT.

    74
    See ATSIC Response to the CGC Report at www.atsic.gov.au.

    75
    Ruddock, P, Government to Focus on Indigenous Need, Media Release
    and associated documents, 27 June 2002. See in particular the Government's
    detailed Response to the Commonwealth Grants Commission 'Report on
    Indigenous Funding 2001'
    .

    76
    ibid.

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

    78
    ibid, p4.

    79
    ibid, p9.

    80
    Social Justice Report 2000, p107.

    81
    ibid.

    82
    ATSIC, ATSIC News, Spring 2002, p44.

    83
    SBS Insight, The Pearson View, 22 March 2001.

    84
    Pearson, N, Our Right to take Responsibility, Noel Pearson and
    Associates, Cairns, 2000, pp42-43.

    85
    See House of Representatives Committee on Aboriginal and Torres Strait
    Islander Affairs, Inquiry into Capacity Building in Indigenous communities,
    www.aph.gov.au/house/committee/atsia/indigenouscommunities/inqinde.htm

    86
    www.indigenous.qld.gov.au

    87
    See http://www.capeyorkpartnerships.com/projects/index.htm.

    88
    Beattie, P, An Open Letter from Premier Beattie to the Indigenous Peoples
    of Cape York
    , at www.capeyorkpartnerships.com/project/gov/index.htm

    89
    For an overview of the Harvard project see Chapter 2 of this Report or
    visit: www.ksg.harvard.edu/hpaied/overview.htm

    90
    Department of Family and Community Services, Stronger Families and
    Communities Strategy
    , see www.facs.gov.au

    91
    CGC, op cit.

    19
    March 2003.