Social Justice Report 2001: Chapter 3: Indigenous governance and community capacity-building

Social Justice Report 2001

• back to contents

Chapter 3: Indigenous governance and community capacity-building

Introduction

Governance and capacity-building – addressing Indigenous economic marginalisation

Current initiatives for building Indigenous capacity and governance

Case studies of governance and capacity building initiatives

The Mutitjulu Community Participation and Partnership Agreement

Community gateway for participation and administration

Consolidated block funding and acquittal package

Participation

Delegation under the Social Security (Administrative) Act 1999

Breaching

Time-frame

Transferability of the model to other communities

Yenbena Indigenous Training Centre

Governance and capacity-building – Future challenges

Introduction

Last year’s Social Justice Report noted that to date there has been insufficient attention by governments to processes which ensure greater Indigenous participation and control over service design and delivery as part of an overall strategy to redress Indigenous disadvantage and economic marginalisation. I observed that:

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. [1]

Over the past year, Reconciliation Australia and the Council of Australian Governments have included strategies in these areas as part of their frameworks for progressing reconciliation. Government initiatives have also been introduced as a result of the Indigenous Community Capacity Building Roundtable held in October 2000 and as part of the welfare reform package in the 2001 federal budget.

This chapter considers the importance of, and recent developments in, Indigenous capacity-building and governance. Capacity-building relates to ‘the abilities, skills, understandings, values, relationships, behaviours, motivations, resources and conditions that enable individuals, organisations, sectors and social systems to carry out functions and achieve their development objectives over time’. [2] >[2] Governance concerns ‘the structures and processes for decision making… [and] is generally understood to encompass stewardship, leadership, direction, control authority and a [3]

There are many familiar elements in current proposals for capacity-building and governance – such as the need for increased Indigenous participation in decision-making, better coordination and less duplication of services, and greater regional and local involvement – that have previously been put forward at the Indigenous policy-making table in other contexts. This chapter examines some of the necessary requirements for capacity-building to be effective in reversing the disadvantaged experienced by many Indigenous communities today and considers a range of recent initiatives to develop or enhance Indigenous governance and capacity.

Governance and capacity-building – addressing Indigenous economic marginalisation

The Social Justice Report 2000 put forward a human rights framework for achieving meaningful reconciliation.4 This framework has the following integrated components:

• An unqualified national commitment to redressing Indigenous disadvantage through the adoption of a long term strategy which progressively reduces the level of disadvantage and ensures whole of government and cross-governmental coordination;
• The facilitation of adequate, nationally consistent data collection to guide decision making and reporting, with appropriate monitoring and evaluation mechanisms;
• The agreement of benchmarks and targeted outcomes through negotiation with Indigenous peoples and organisations, state, territory and local governments and service delivery organisations, with clear timeframes for achieving longer term and short term goals;
• National leadership to facilitate inter-governmental cooperation and coordination;
• The development of greater partnership approaches to ensure the full and effective participation of Indigenous peoples in the design and delivery of services; and

• The adequate protection of human rights, including through constitutional means, and negotiations on mechanisms to overcome the structural inequalities caused by the systemic racism and lack of recognition of Indigenous cultures in the past. [5]

Central to this approach is the commitment of governments to long-term processes to redress Indigenous marginalisation and acknowledgement of the necessity for a changed relationship between Indigenous people and the mainstream society. As the previous chapter noted, anything less than this will not be able to bring about lasting change to the state of economic marginalisation currently experienced by Indigenous people.

The necessity for such a changed relationship underpinned the approach the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody, which saw the disempowerment of Indigenous people through governmental control as the main barrier to the equal enjoyment of rights by Indigenous people. The Royal Commission made recommendations for longer term, more flexible forms of funding arrangements which would ensure increased Indigenous participation. In particular, it recommended that Commonwealth, State and Territory governments introduce triennial block grant funding for Indigenous organizations, and that ‘wherever possible this funding be allocated through a single source with one set of audit and financial requirements but with the maximum devolution of power to the communities and organizations to determine the priorities for the allocation of such funds’. [6]

Fundamentally, government modes of service delivery to Indigenous people to date have operated, no doubt unintentionally, to constrain Indigenous social and economic development. As ATSIC have noted:

[7] the debate in Australia has been confined to improving the prevailing ‘directed community services model’. This model aims to provide services to Indigenous people as a category of disadvantaged Australians. Most funding is at the discretion, as well as the direction, of Commonwealth, State and Territory government agencies… [7] Few Indigenous people can exercise any substantive jurisdictional responsibilities over matters of the most direct concern to them. They are almost totally dependent on government funding arrangements designed to deliver programs and services based on non-Indigenous models of governance. Commonwealth, state and local governments do not share any of their substantial jurisdictional responsibilities, few are prepared even to consider negotiations with Indigenous peoples. eo [8]

Such a ‘community service model’ is devoid of any connection to economic development:

Current funding arrangements provide little encouragement to Indigenous economic development since the resourcing of Indigenous organisations does not increase with increases in economic activity in their local area. Without such a linkage, the idea of development is reduced to one of ‘community development’ devoid of any economic dimension. Service delivery itself brings few economic benefits and little stimulus to Indigenous economic advancement Current funding arrangements provide little encouragement to Indigenous economic development since the resourcing of Indigenous organisations does not increase with increases in economic activity in their local area. Without such a linkage, the idea of development is reduced to one of ‘community development’ devoid of any economic dimension. Service delivery itself brings few economic benefits and little stimulus to Indigenous economic advancement [9]

Similarly, it does not promote effective Indigenous participation:

The idea of self-determination is intimately linked with that of a political community, or people, having a right and ability to determine its own priorities and design its own instruments of communal regulation and provision. It is not furthered by the present system of highly externally directed arrangements for funding Indigenous organisations in Australia, nor service delivery by non-government organisations. Self-determination requires that there should be at least some aspects within the funding arrangements that allow Indigenous incorporated bodies to determine their own priorities and strategies, and recognise them as political communities of peoples with their own governance arrangements. It has often been argued, following this line of reasoning, that current arrangements in Indigenous affairs only amount to community self-management of individual programs, rather than self-determination . [10]

As I noted in last year’s report, Indigenous self-determination is not ‘merely an end in itself’ but ‘has at its end the process of social and economic equality’. [11] href="#11">[11] It involves the ‘right to demand full democratic partnership’ in society, by which Indigenous peoples ‘negotiate freely their status and representation in the State in which they live… This does not mean the assimilation of Indigenous individuals as citizens like all others, but the recognition and incorporation of distinct peoples in the fabr [12] A ‘full democratic partnership’ means effective participation and partnership in any decision-making processes that affect Indigenous people – not on the basis of ‘sameness’, but in such a way that recognises the unique status of Indigenous peoples, and which respects and gives appropriate expression to their distinctive cultures within societal structures.

Building community capacity provides a potential vehicle for the renewal of societal structures and the political recognition and representation of Indigenous peoples’ status. The development of effective community capacity and governance arrangements may give rise to the creation of regional arrangements that link local community control with state level decision-making. [13] This does not necessarily entail the creation of another level of government, although this may be a possible option in areas where existing arrangements are found to be inadequate for the provision of services and political representati [14]

The current approach of governments does not yet place sufficient importance on these factors. It operates within a short term timeframe and without consideration being given to the aspirations, priorities or empowerment of Indigenous people. It has generally resulted in uncoordinated funding arrangements between government departments and levels of government, and led to what last year’s Social Justice Report termed as a process that manages – rather than seeks to overcome – the level of Indigenous disadvantage and inequality in Australian society. This is now being combined with a mutual obligation approach to welfare reform and welfare dependency as discussed in the previous chapter, which possesses some highly individualistic and ahistorical elements. It is yet to become clear as to whether the emphases on a broader network of obligations and social partnerships promoted through the McClure Report will provide the grounds for equitable and sufficient reform of the current welfare system and employment situation for Indigenous Australians.

As ATSIC explain in highlighting the key directions necessary for change for Indigenous people:

The range of social, economic and cultural issues confronting Indigenous communities and peoples requires both general and specific responses in facilitating change. The wider the involvement of all the Indigenous people in developing their capacities to determine the nature, pace and objectives of change, the more likely it will be that the changes will be effective and sustainable. While there can be no certainty that outcomes will be achieved in every instance, it is certain that effective facilitation will lead to useful learning for the participants, and make a clear break with the ‘Welfarist’ approach to Indigenous community development The range of social, economic and cultural issues confronting Indigenous communities and peoples requires both general and specific responses in facilitating change. The wider the involvement of all the Indigenous people in developing their capacities to determine the nature, pace and objectives of change, the more likely it will be that the changes will be effective and sustainable. While there can be no certainty that outcomes will be achieved in every instance, it is certain that effective facilitation will lead to useful learning for the participants, and make a clear break with the ‘Welfarist’ approach to Indigenous community development [15]

The necessity of this approach has also been highlighted by the Commonwealth Grants Commission in its review of Indigenous funding need. The purpose of the Commission’s inquiry was to establish a method to ‘determine the needs of groups of indigenous Australians relative to one another’. [16] The Commission identified seven key principles for aligning Indigenous funding closer with the level of need as follows:

(i) the full and effective participation of Indigenous people in decisions affecting funding distribution and service 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 services 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. [17]

They also identified the key areas for action to implement these principles, given current funding arrangements as to:

• Identify and address the barriers to access that Indigenous people face in using mainstream programs;
• Establish funding arrangements that reflect the long term and wide ranging nature of Indigenous need;
• Establish a defined role for Indigenous people in decision making on the allocation of funds and service delivery at the Commonwealth, state and local level;
• Take steps to improve the capacity (of Indigenous people and communities) to manage; and

• Collect better data. [18]

The Commission stated that, ‘we see a practical reason why Indigenous people must be involved in deciding how funds should be allocated to meet their needs – the need for judgement’. [19] ">[19] The report emphasised the necessity of ‘value judgements’, particularly by Indigenous people but also by experienced service providers, in defining indicators of need, determining effective outcomes and ‘how equi [20]

Accordingly, the Commission identified the following features for enabling effective participation by Indigenous people at the community level in aligning resources to meet needs: full participation in identifying needs and in decision-making about funding for provision of services; resourcing participation in those discussions; control of service provision; and the ability to form productive collaborative arrangements with the main providers of services. [21]

The Commission stated specifically on the importance of developing Indigenous community capacity that:

The relationship between capacity building and the achievement of service outcomes needs to be recognised in funding decisions. The success of programs will be compromised if funding is not provided to invest in community capacity building… building community capacity, especially developing the capacity of Indigenous organizations and communities to manage service delivery, is a crucial step in ensuring that Indigenous people play a central role in decision-making and more effective use of funds. [22]

ATSIC have similarly argued that:

It is only if the members of the community can influence, if not determine, the use of resources available to them that they are likely to be used in accord with the preferences of recipients. Only if it accords with those preferences will those resources give the maximum benefits to the recipients . [23]

The relationship between capacity building and achieving service outcomes needs to be recognised and acted upon – building capacity can assist Indigenous organizations to be more effective in identifying needs and appropriate funding, and in participating in collaborative decision-making arrangements. The Commonwealth Grants Commission argues that developing effective community capacity is of equal importance to meeting infrastructure needs and that communities lacking this kind of capacity will need a higher initial investment of resources to ‘provide a framework for the effective delivery of services and sustainable outcomes’. [24] An investment over time to build this capacity is crucial.

This will be easier for some communities than for others. The Commonwealth Grants Commission noted, for example, the following factors as critical for improving the capacity of Indigenous communities to manage:

• level of social cohesion;
• strength of culture;
• provision of relevant education and training in areas such as corporate governance, management and information collection and use;
• transfer of positions in service delivery from external sources to communities over time;
• building economic and social self-reliance within communities through use of CDEP to foster small business and build up communities; and

• fostering home ownership to consolidate commitment to community’s future. [25]

These factors reinforce the requirement for a longer term commitment to governance and capacity building processes in order to address Indigenous economic marginalisation.

Current initiatives for building Indigenous capacity and governance

There have been a range of positive developments in relation to building Indigenous capacity and governance recently. There is increasing understanding among Commonwealth government departments that single portfolio or program-based interventions are insufficient to address problems facing Indigenous communities. Many are increasingly accepting the necessity ‘to address governance issues for Indigenous communities and organizations as a priority, and [that] this should be a key factor in shaping a model of capacity building’. [26]

There are some existing mainstream programs which are able to be utilised to strengthen Indigenous community capacity. These include the Department of Family and Community Services’ (DFACS) Family and Community Networks Initiative for developing the capacity of families and communities to respond to local issues through strengthening family and community networks, improving access to information and delivering local-based initiatives. DFACS also provides support for community-based initiatives through its Stronger Families and Communities Strategy. The Department of Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business has allocated $10 million over four years under its Community Business Partnership for business and the community to work together to increase opportunities for people with disabilities, mature age people, Indigenous people and parents. [27]

Indigenous support for community capacity-building has also been given in the October 2000 Indigenous Families and Communities Roundtable’s communiqué, which identified the following principles:

• Flexibility in programme administration;
• Coordinated, whole of government responses;
• Collaborations between business, churches, Indigenous organizations, other non-government bodies and the broader community;
• Building upon existing strengths and assets within families and communities;
• The empowerment of individuals and communities in leadership and management; and

• Encouraging self-reliance and sustainable economic and social development. [28]

As discussed in the previous chapter, the 2001-02 Budget also allocated $32 million from July 2001 for trials in around 100 communities of Community Participation Agreements in regional and remote areas. Reconciliation Australia has also identified as a key priority in its Strategic plan support for developing Indigenous community capacity:

Stable Indigenous organisations that are accountable to their communities, and responsive to their needs and values, form the critical foundations for community and family well-being. Such institutions also provide the essential mechanisms through which leadership is exercised in dealing with governments, their various agencies, and the private sector. In Australia there has been limited sustained attention given to issues of governance and capacity-building in Indigenous communities through their local and regional representative organisations. Conversely, the issue of Indigenous governance, capacity building and devolution of service delivery has been a central policy focus in Canada and the United States for a number of years. This overseas experience has confirmed that successfully addressing community dysfunction and improving socio-economic outcomes is directly linked to:

• communities having genuine decision-making power;
• exercising that power through effective institutions; and

• governing institutions acquiring legitimacy with the people whose future is at stake. [29]

Accordingly, Reconciliation Australia have committed to a national conference to examine current and future Indigenous governance issues, including the ‘current legislative and corporate framework, leadership and capacity building, and best practice in Australia and overseas’. [30] [30] Following on from this, Reconciliation Australia plan to ‘highlight and promote best practice in Indigenous governance through the provision of appropriate training, education and capacity building’ in ‘partnership with relevant institutions and consistent with con [31]

In its communiqué of November 2000, the Council of Australian Governments (COAG) also committed ‘to an approach based on partnerships and shared responsibilities with Indigenous communities, programme flexibility and coordination between government agencies, with a focus on local communities and outcomes’. [32] This approach forms the basis of its reconciliation framework under which relevant Commonwealth/State Ministerial Councils are to develop actions plans for improving social and economic outcomes for Indigenous people within a 12-month period. COAG is to take a leading role in implementing this reconciliation framework, periodically reviewing and reporting back to the Prime Minister on progress made.

As noted in the introductory chapter of this report, this communiqué follows on from COAG’s previous national commitment to improved service delivery outcomes for Indigenous people from 1992, as well as from the commitments of governments to the recommendations of the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody and numerous other reports and inquiries.

As the lead agency on capacity building within the COAG framework for advancing reconciliation, ATSIC is to drive the process of obtaining acceptance of agreed core principles across government, in partnership with key agencies and jurisdictions. Together with the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet (PM&C) it ‘may promote a Commonwealth methodology around community capacity building which focuses on the development of one central administrative process across Commonwealth agencies for the movement of resources to communities and regions’. [33]

These initiatives are important in moving towards changing the relationship between Indigenous communities and governments, and for re-empowering communities to take control of their circumstances. The commitments to this process to date, however, remain short-term and minimal in terms of funding support. While these initiatives are to be welcomed, they only hint at the potential for reconfiguring and transforming the relationship of Indigenous communities with the mainstream society. Indigenous community capacity and governance mechanisms could be furthered through facilitating more effective forms of financial and administrative self-government.

For example, the CGC recommended that fundamental improvements could be made through a move to an outcomes-based approach to current Indigenous funding and arrangements. A focus on ‘outcomes’ takes into account what has been achieved in terms of the inputs invested in meeting needs: that is, the resources given to service providers to provide services or facilities, and the outputs these service providers achieve with their given levels of input, [34] [34] whereas ‘need’ merely indicates the difference in relative status between particular groups or individuals – specifically, ‘the difference between an existing situation a [35]

An outcomes-based approach to the distribution of funds is in keeping with the principle of substantive equality as it has the capacity to take into account different variables such as the impact of geographic, economic, and demographic variables on mainstream programs across the regions, and the varying levels of Commonwealth, State and Territory involvement in service provision. It is also able to take into account the investments made over periods of time, so that assets less easily calculable, such as investments in organisational capacity and people over a long period, are not jeopardised. More importantly, the CGC’s recognition of the necessity of value judgements in determining outcomes, and the role of Indigenous people at the level of decision-making, provides an opportunity to increase their participation.

Other recent perspectives link the need for greater participation and community capacity with the development of Indigenous self-governance arrangements that re-define the current financial and administrative relationship between government and Indigenous communities.

‘Resourcing Indigenous Development and Self-Determination’, a Scoping Paper prepared for ATSIC in September 2000 by the Australia Institute links political recognition with the achievement of proper autonomy and self-sufficiency for Indigenous peoples:

Under current financial arrangements Indigenous organisations have neither the means nor the incentive to develop the economic base of their communities. Sustainable development is a long-term process that requires assured funding over a number of years. This is not available without some kind of entitlement. It requires political support from their communities that very few of the current organisations can get because they have no defined jurisdictional responsibilities (other than those stated in their constitutions . [36]

The paper argues that aspects of a new order of Indigenous governance could include:

• Replacement of discretionary tied grants with more flexible and varied funding arrangements;

• A diversity of governance arrangements to be developed over time, including the potential to develop governance arrangements with new jurisdictional responsibilities (e.g. in relation to a land base) or within existing governmental structures; [37] and

• Allocation of rights and responsibilities for a broad range of functions and decisions, including political, cultural, social and economic. [38]

Indigenous jurisdiction is ‘likely to extend to matters that are internal to the group, integral to its distinct culture, and essential to its operation as a political and cultural community’. [39] Some of the areas that could be covered by these governance arrangements are:

• Establishment of governing structures, elections and membership;
• Maintenance of Indigenous languages, culture and religion;
• Child welfare, education, health and social services;
• Administration and enforcement of Indigenous laws;
• Land and resource management, including zoning, service fees, land tenure and access; development of own-source revenue opportunities;
• Management of public works, infrastructure, housing, local transport; and

• Licensing, regulation and operation of businesses located on Indigenous lands. [40]

The Scoping Paper advocates that existing processes of intergovernmental financial transfers be extended to facilitate these governance arrangements. An Indigenous order of governance would mean that:

Indigenous organisations would be dealt with differently by Commonwealth, State and Territory, and local governments in a number of ways… negotiated with as equals, rather than simply directed to work within pre-established program and service delivery guidelines. They would be accorded their jurisdiction and some reasonably durable and guaranteed source of finance for exercising that jurisdiction. Indigenous organisations would be dealt with differently by Commonwealth, State and Territory, and local governments in a number of ways… negotiated with as equals, rather than simply directed to work within pre-established program and service delivery guidelines. They would be accorded their jurisdiction and some reasonably durable and guaranteed source of finance for exercising that jurisdiction. [41]

Noel Pearson has also made arguments for government payments to be made to communities: ‘Government transfers are valuable and necessary resources, but the welfare nature of these transfers has to be changed in order to make it a useful and productive resource’. [42] [42] The issue for Pearson is the way in which welfare is delivered to Indigenous communities: in the past, ‘welfare in the negative sense’ has been delivered to individuals or to community organizations to deliver to individuals, undercutting Indigenous patterns of sharing and obligations and creating a ‘money for no [43] Pearson argues that Aboriginal communities do not receive their ‘fair share of the country’s resources’ and in fact need more in order to facilitate a level of development that will lead to sustainable economic participation. Pearson’s notion of a ‘regional interface’ between government, Indigenous communities and other stakeholders would provide a means of restructuring this relationship and enable Indigenous communities to exercise greater self-determination in receiving and directing government funds through reciprocity-based programs.

All of these approaches are geared towards increasing Indigenous participation in the management of their affairs and economic self-sufficiency, goals that at a glance would appear to be in keeping with the current government’s policy emphases on self-reliance, practical reconciliation and mutual obligation. However, they extend this agenda in a number of ways. The individualistic focus of much contemporary welfare reform policy is challenged through the development of structures based on distinct Indigenous groupings to interface with government. These structures project a specific relationship with government and other stakeholders in which there is scope to determine the reciprocal roles and obligations of all parties involved. Self-determination through the creation of structures and processes that give recognition to distinct values and features of Indigenous cultures and societies is also a necessary dimension of these arrangements.

As discussed in Chapter 2, the McClure Report which has in part been endorsed by the Coalition government promotes a reformed participation support system that possesses some features directed towards expanding social obligations and partnerships across all levels of the community. The Community Participation Agreement (CPA) initiative introduced as part of the Budget 2Ѻs welfare reform package is to provide a specific opportunity for remote Indigenous communities to develop their own definitions and applications of mutual obligation.

The two case studies presented in the following section, one of which is part of the CPA initiative, investigate the potential for Indigenous people to build capacity and develop governance arrangements in ways that adequately and appropriately give expression to their participation and self-determination within current social, economic and policy contexts.

Case studies of governance and capacity building initiatives

There are currently in place a number of processes where Indigenous communities and organisations have sought to create a new order of governance and autonomy. These include the ATSIC Murdi Paaki Regional Council Plan in New South Wales, which makes use of a coalition of community working parties to improve participation in regional planning and service delivery processes, and the Cape York Peninsula Partnerships Plan, which has built on Noel Pearson’s proposal for a regional interface through developing partnership arrangements between the Cape York communities, the State Government and business leaders to address disadvantage through better integration of planning processes and identification of new operating practices. Both these models are precursors to the development of Indigenous governance structures.

These models, and others such as the ATSIC Miwatj Regional Council approach, were discussed in Chapter 4 of last year’s Social Justice Report . This year’s report focuses on the Mutitjulu Community Participation and Partnership Agreement and Yenbena Indigenous Training Centre as examples of initiatives that seek to build capacity at a community level and increase Indigenous participation in and control over decision-making processes.

Modelling is taking place with the Mutitjulu Community Council and residents (Anangu people) located near Uluru-Kata Tjuta National Park as part of the Commonwealth’s Community Participation Agreement (CPA) initiative being pioneered in the Budget 2001 package. This process seeks to provide opportunities for increased participation by community and other partners in building capacity as well as the basis for development of more effective funding and administrative mechanisms and potentially future governance arrangements.

The Yenbena Indigenous Training Centre is an initiative of the Yorta Yorta Nations Aboriginal Corporation in northern Victoria. It is an example of a community-directed capacity-building arrangement that seeks to combine employment and training initiatives with self-determination in response to a lack of effective whole-of-government approaches at State and Commonwealth levels.

Both models illustrate the potential, as well as the complexity, of new approaches to Indigenous service delivery and governance.

The Mutitjulu Community Participation and Partnership Agreement

Earlier this year ATSIC commissioned a consultancy to undertake research with a view to developing a Community Participation Agreement for the Mutitjulu Community Council and residents. This Agreement will be the first of its kind, ‘a litmus test for the Commonwealth’s new welfare policy approach’ and ‘a demonstration project for government in respect to its ability to provide a comprehensive approach to delivering the necessary support and funding, and to establish a practical partnership with the community’. [44]

The Mutitjulu Community Participation and Partnership Agreement Report (herein the ‘Report’) was also a response to concerns expressed over several years by the community to ATSIC, Centrelink, DEWRSB, Parks Australia and other agencies in regard to welfare reform and service delivery issues. [45] The Report identified lack of coordination planning and service delivery by government, intergenerational welfare dependency and the existence of a multiplicity of governance structures as key factors in the erosion of the community’s social, economic and cultural capital.

The Report also noted the community’s substantial local economic, enterprise and employment opportunities, due to its location with thriving local tourism and arts industries; major (potential) employment and infrastructure benefits deriving from its joint management arrangement with Parks Australia and the world-heritage Park listing of Uluru-Kata Tjuta National Park; good institutional support, service delivery coverage and significant access to resources in the form of advisors, local service agencies, access to training providers, an adult education building, an Indigenous Job Network, and an Indigenous high school. [46]

Despite the economic potential of their location, the Report observes that the Anangu ‘seem to have remained marginal to many of the developments taking place on their lands’. [47] Sixty per cent of the community’s population are working age and over sixty-four per cent are currently reliant on welfare. Those most consistently employed have a history of working on pastoral stations, and work now as consultants and casual rangers for the Uluru-Kata Tjuta National Park. Some employment is offered through Parks Australia, the Mutitjulu Employment Program, the Council and community agencies, although largely on a casual basis. Only one tour operator out of the operators and retail businesses operating from the resort employs Anangu people. The young people are largely unemployed or only employed on an intermittent casual basis, and tend to be reliant on older people and welfare payments for cash and resources.

Other flows of money – referred to as the ‘money line’ – provide additional resources in the form of rent and gate funds, and traditional owners receive further distributions and royalties. While the money line ensures that the community is not cash poor, these flows of money are unevenly distributed, sporadic and poorly targeted and act as a further disincentive against seeking employment or getting off welfare. High levels of educational disadvantage, health problems, incarceration of young males, and social dysfunction also make maximum participation in employment difficult. Participation through community governance structures and decision-making processes is further undermined by other corporate structures, the roles, functions and powers of which are ill-defined and, on occasion, lack accountability to the community. [48]

It is recognised that there are no easy solutions to the problems facing the community, and the Report suggests that a 5-10 year commitment is necessary for the community Participation Program model to make any inroads on the current situation. This would involve ‘a planned transition to community control and management, within the existing legislative framework, and in a real partnership between the Mutitjulu Community Council, the Federal Government and other key stakeholders’. [49] The model put forward is to cover all social security recipients at Mutitjulu and its key objectives are:

• A one-in all-in approach to participation;
• Recognising, through the development of a participation framework, the contribution of groups within the community;
• Identifying innovative approaches to money management within the community and encouraging improved budgeting and financial responsibility;
• Exploring alternative approaches to service delivery arrangements;
• Building the organisational and management capacity of the community; and

• Exploring opportunities of more effective partnering with the business sector and non government sector. [50]

Through its strategic framework the model also relies upon and promotes the principles of cultural relevance; individual entitlement rights; equitable access; community development; administrative workability; financial accountability and efficiency; and enhanced service delivery and outcomes for individuals and their families. [51]

Since the Report was finalised, a draft operational plan, participation program and activities have been developed for the Mutitjulu community and a Regional Project Coordinator has commenced to assist in the coordination requirements for the project and consolidate communication protocols between Community, departmental and other partners. A Commonwealth Reference Group has been established, consisting of representatives from key agencies including ATSIC, Department of Family and Community Services, Department of Reconciliation and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs, Department of Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business, and Environment Australia. The Reference Group has made an undertaking to progress the development of the Mutitjulu Community Participation and Partnership Agreement through some of the key principles and goals of the Report.

This Reference Group provides a forum for addressing action areas identified in the COAG framework for advancing reconciliation as well as advancing the development of specific Community Participation Agreement projects. It has been proposed that a Heads of Agreement be negotiated between the Community Council and relevant federal government departments which will address such components as a delegation under the Social Security Act 1999 for the Community Council to deliver income support payments; the ‘one-in all-in’ participation model; block funding; evaluation and monitoring; coordination at different levels; and a time-frame.

Issues to be addressed in the short-term include: development of participation activities with local agencies and stakeholders; assessment of staffing and facilities needed for Participation Program; establishment of a Regional Transaction Centre; provision of an ATM machine and assessment of community banking needs; establishment of an advisory committee; development of local Partnership Protocols for relationships between community and Commonwealth departments; design of Individual Participation Agreements and a Community Service Agreement; and the development of National and Regional Frameworks for facilitating the Agreement. ATSIC has also proposed the establishment of a Commonwealth Taskforce to progress development of Mutitjulu’s Community Participation Agreement under the direction of the Reference Group.

Some aspects of the proposed Mutitjulu CPA model, such as the ‘one-in all-in’ participation approach and customising of compliance measures, suggest a degree of public policy innovation in Indigenous governance and capacity-building. However, a number of its propositions are by no means new and have been floated previously in contexts linked with a rights or self-determination agenda rather than an emphasis on increased participation and welfare reform as the context of change. These include the Council’s brokering role; consolidated block funding and acquittal package; the use of partnerships, national and local; and improvements to community financial services. [52]

Community gateway for participation and administration

One of the Report’s recommendations is that the Mutitjulu Community Council should act as the ‘employer, broker and negotiator’ for implementation and management of the Agreement. On behalf of the Council, Participation Program staff would formulate and implement Council policies and guidelines, and undertake administration of the Program, including delivery of a menu of participation activities. This would mean upgrading the Council’s current hardware, software and office infrastructure to establish an electronically-based community financial and administrative system tailored to the operation of the Program and capable of linking all individual participation and income data which is in turn linked to Centrelink’s database.

The Program would also be able to provide entitlements on a weekly basis to encourage better management of savings and expenditure. Community administration of the Agreement would be able to respond to some of the problems associated with Centrelink assessments of entitlement levels such as increased breach rates, termination of payments, incurred debt, and high levels of frustration with complex forms and Centrelink correspondence reported among Indigenous social security recipients. [53]

The community gateway would thus assist in addressing some of the specific issues affecting remote Indigenous welfare recipients (especially those surrounding ‘breaching’) and deliver greater equity to participants. The brokering role envisaged for the Council also increases the scope for effective participation, greater community control and self-determination in the future. This concept has similarities with the recommendations of the Commonwealth Grants Commission in its Indigenous funding report that Indigenous people play a significant decision-making role in funding for mainstream services and that funding be pooled from different sources to achieve more effective outcomes for Indigenous people. It is also consistent with Noel Pearson’s model of a regional interface between the Cape York Aboriginal communities and state and Commonwealth departments and agencies that would:

… provide the forum to negotiate how programs will be actioned and the respective roles of government agencies, regional organisations and local people…. the principle is partnership between the resource providers and our community – with the aim to maximise action, initiative and responsibility on the ground and to limit the role of government to providing resources and expertise. … provide the forum to negotiate how programs will be actioned and the respective roles of government agencies, regional organisations and local people…. the principle is partnership between the resource providers and our community – with the aim to maximise action, initiative and responsibility on the ground and to limit the role of government to providing resources and expertise. [54]

As in Pearson’s model, the Mutitjulu community gateway is reliant on sustained collaboration and support from other agencies, particularly in the initial stages of developing the community’s administrative capacity to implement the program. The respective roles of government and the community in progressing a gateway or interface raise some complex issues in relation to self-determination. David Martin has commented recently on the difficulties inherent in implementing Pearson’s model as follows:

While government may not have the moral authority with Aboriginal people to effect change, as Pearson suggests, it is arguable that it does have a moral responsibility to ensure that principles of social justice, equity, and accountability are adhered to in the utilisation of the resources it provides to address Indigenous socio-economic disadvantage. This, and the fractured nature of the contemporary Indigenous polity, suggest that government may need to be involved as ‘partners’ at a far more intimate and hands-on level than Pearson envisages, including assisting with the development of new Indigenous governance institutions and facilitating capacity-building within those institutional arrangements. [55]

The timeframe given for the Mutitjulu CPA supports Martin’s conjecture about the comprehensive level of government involvement required for the facilitation of new models of Indigenous governance. But while contemporary governments have a duty of care in assisting Indigenous people to develop autonomy, this must be exercised in accordance with Indigenous aspirations and self-determination. Ownership of any new governance models, whether developed through CPA or other initiatives, and the authority to implement them, must be ascertained from the Indigenous constituents to whom the models relate. [56]

Additionally, the relationship of Indigenous kinship and authority structures to the processes and structures of these models should be taken into account in order to avoid further erosion of social cohesion in Indigenous societies and cultures. Martin has made the following observation about the damage inflicted on Aboriginal social control mechanisms through external interventions, such as the imposition of various administrative regimes on Indigenous people:

… the ever increasing interventions of external forces continue to rupture and subordinate the internal mechanisms of social control, and of socialisation, and the consequent chaotic circumstances require ever more staff to deal with it, so perpetrating the cycle. … the ever increasing interventions of external forces continue to rupture and subordinate the internal mechanisms of social control, and of socialisation, and the consequent chaotic circumstances require ever more staff to deal with it, so perpetrating the cycle. /e [57]

In contemplating new models of governance and capacity-building, it is important that some of the more fundamental issues concerning the respective roles and authority of Indigenous, government and other partners are re-visited, or in time these new models may run the risk of becoming yet another case of a failed Indigenous policy initiative and a further source of ‘blaming the victim’.

As Diane Smith has observed in regard to the capacity of national departmental coordination to support initiatives such as CPAs:

Departmental coordination has been an oft-stated government policy objective that has worn thin from overuse and under-implementation. One has to question whether it is a real possibility, or whether is it merely serves as a convenient placebo for lack of capacity to deliver on the part of government and its departments. These Agreements will constitute a challenge to the capacity of ATSIC, DFACS, Centrelink and DEWRSB, in particular, to formulate the coherent enabling policy and consolidated program platform that are needed. [58]

Consolidated block funding and acquittal package

Related to the community gateway concept is the Report’s argument that the model needs to be based on the pooling of resources from multi-jurisdictional and cross-functional areas of government, through a consolidated budgetary package providing one incoming financial stream to the community. This package would comprise the recurrent block release of Centrelink entitlement funding for Mutitjulu recipients, and a consolidated block of cross-departmental program funding. [59] ATSIC would have a role in making a comprehensive audit of program funding and negotiating the package.

As noted above, there have been a series of recommendations for more flexible and longer-term funding arrangements such as block funding through a single source, triennial funding, and pooled funding from the reports of the Royal Commission onwards. At present, a cash-out approach to Centrelink allowances similar to that of the Aboriginal Coordinated Health Care Trials (where pooled funding is to be directed towards client need regardless of program or institutional boundaries) is being investigated with a view to further exploration of block and pooled funding.

The acceptance and implementation of proposals such as these which seek to provide more effective funding arrangements for Indigenous communities and organizations is a pre-requisite for furthering Indigenous self-determination and self-management. It could also be linked to increasing Indigenous peoples’ capacity to direct and manage jurisdictional responsibilities, and to raise revenue in the future. As ATSIC’s Scoping Paper on resourcing Indigenous governance notes, the present directed community services model has done little to increase Indigenous autonomy as ‘the resourcing of Indigenous organisations does not increase with increases in economic activity in their local area. Without such a linkage, the idea of development is reduced to one of “community development” devoid of any economic dimension’. [60]

Diane Smith has noted that there is some bureaucratic concern about the potential program costs associated with implementing Community Participation Agreements. However, as discussed in Chapter 2, any increases in the costs of measures for redressing Indigenous disadvantaged need to be assessed in terms of ‘the progressive reduction and eventual elimination of the social costs accrued to Indigenous disadvantage’. [61] [61] Smith comments that given the likely increases in costs within the next decade for both government and Indigenous peoples in meeting Indigenous health, social and economic needs, ‘the potential costs associated with enabling Indigenous welfare recipients to engage in purposeful participation, education and training, and community economic development under the Agreement framework arguably represent a longer-term cost saving in welfare, health and other progra [62]

Participation

The proposed Community Participation and Partnership Agreement relies upon participation as its key concept rather than mutual obligation or reciprocity. Participation is defined as:

the mobilisation of individuals, their families and representative community organizations to take an active responsibility for the planning and delivery of welfare services and income support payments, with the specific object of improving their well-being . [63]

This definition is in keeping with the McClure Report’s more expansive conception of mutual obligation as being underpinned by a network of obligations across the spectrum of the community. The McClure Report also observed the need for any application of this principle to Indigenous communities to be culturally relevant, responsive to individual circumstances, and developed through consultation at the local level. [64] As discussed in Chapter 2, there is already a precedent for Indigenous Australians’ participation in a form of mutual obligation through the CDEP Scheme.

Participation as defined within the Mutitjulu model includes people’s participation in everyday cultural, social and economic activities in the community, at individual, family and community levels, including regional family and community networks. Participation activities are to be meaningful and flexible, and potentially the Program could facilitate a range of activities geared towards greater participation, community and capacity-building, including coordinated vocational and life-skills training; intensive individualised assistance and participation; development of a skilled and job-ready labour pool; and support for individual and family financial management. [65]

The ‘all-in one-in’ participation model put forward in the Report includes both active participation and tailored assistance to certain categories of participants. All able-bodied adults under 49 years and in receipt of unemployment payments for more than six months are to undertake some form of participation. Parenting requirements are to be subjected to a range of progressive requirements, and it is possible that Disabled Pensioners might also be included in the Program. This is with a view to accommodating petrol sniffers, who make up around 10 per cent of Disabled Pensions recipients, as there is ‘a strong view expressed at Mutitjulu that disabled people, especially petrol sniffers, could greatly benefit from inclusion within the Program, including both participation and assistance tailored to their particular circumstances and capacities’. [66] The tailored assistance strategy component enables those in receipt of social security incomes:

on the basis of age, disability, frailty, ill-health or caring duties, or who are already undertaking voluntary responsibilities … [to] be provided with tailored assistance to support them undertaking existing responsibilities. on the basis of age, disability, frailty, ill-health or caring duties, or who are already undertaking voluntary responsibilities … [to] be provided with tailored assistance to support them undertaking existing responsibilities. [67]

This will give recognition to the contributions that they are already making to personal, family and community well-being. In addition, participation is being defined by this model:

… not only as a practical contribution, via a range of locally-defined activities, in exchange for income support (that is, as an obligation), but also as a form of local-decision-making, policy formulation and service delivery: that is, participation is seen to be about community management of welfare. It is likely that every remote community considering the possible development of an Agreement, will take a similarly wide view of what constitutes participation. … not only as a practical contribution, via a range of locally-defined activities, in exchange for income support (that is, as an obligation), but also as a form of local-decision-making, policy formulation and service delivery: that is, participation is seen to be about community management of welfare. It is likely that every remote community considering the possible development of an Agreement, will take a similarly wide view of what constitutes participation. /e [68]

Delegation under the Social Security (Administrative) Act 1999

‘All-in one-in’ participation within the Program would require negotiation of an Individual Participation Agreement (IPA) with each person which is then signed by the participant and Council delegate. Currently under sections 605(1) and 544(1) of the Social Security (Administrative) Act 1999 (SSA) all Newstart and Youth Allowance customers must be informed of the requirement to enter a Preparing-for-Work Agreement. Mutitjulu residents would be required to enter an IPA through the community Program. The ATSIC Report recommended that the Community Council be:

given a delegation, under the Social Security (Administrative) Act 1999, to directly deliver agreed welfare services and income support payments to all persons receiving or eligible for them…. [which] will need to include authority to negotiate, approve, monitor and enforce Individual Participation Agreements, and to impose community stages of breaching and appeal linked to Centrelink procedures … [and] would need to proceed via a newly created community position of Participation Program Manager who would be employed and directly responsible to the Council. given a delegation, under the Social Security (Administrative) Act 1999, to directly deliver agreed welfare services and income support payments to all persons receiving or eligible for them…. [which] will need to include authority to negotiate, approve, monitor and enforce Individual Participation Agreements, and to impose community stages of breaching and appeal linked to Centrelink procedures … [and] would need to proceed via a newly created community position of Participation Program Manager who would be employed and directly responsible to the Council. [69]

Such a delegation could be made under s234(1) of the SSA, and would be consistent with the 1991 amendments to the Act, which ‘state that in its administration, the Secretary is to have regard to, among other things, “the need to be responsive to Aboriginality and to cultural and linguistic diversity”’. [70] The Report argues that the CPA initiative presents a more responsive policy approach to meeting the needs of the Mutitjulu community and will be most effective if supported by the existing legislation.

In addition, the ‘all-in one-in’ model requires Centrelink to lift the ‘remote community exemption’. This exemption ‘removes the requirement to impose any activity testing on Anangu social security recipients resident at Mutitjulu and elsewhere’, to offset the specific difficulties faced by remote communities in complying with requirements for receipt of Centrelink allowances. [71] . [71] As it stands, the remote community exemption presents a form of ‘reasonable differentiation’, which is the CERD Committee’s term for differential practices or treatment adapted to the circumstances of a particular racial group that are not able to be characterised as ‘special measures’ bu [72] Removing the remote community exemption will mean that compliance measures (in this instance, developed in conjunction with the community) can be applied by the Community Council via its delegate in ways that are relevant and responsive to local circumstances. The implementation of compliance measures authorised by the community would be facilitated by the proposed delegation to be made under s234(1) of the SSA.

In some respects, the coercive aspect of the model – the requirement to fulfil certain participation activities in exchange for social security entitlements – follows the precedent set by the CDEP scheme as a form of income support with reciprocation. Like the CDEP scheme, the CPA initiative has developed from a similar context, in response to requests for alternatives to ‘sit-down’ money by a remote community. The Report suggests that the community’s leaders and elders will use breaching as a means of putting the brakes on the excesses of welfare dependency, and for potentially reinstating more appropriate values and lines of authority. [73] In comparison to the CDEP Scheme, the CPA initiative presents an increased level of coerciveness with its requirement that all able-bodied social security participants below the age of 50 subscribe to the Program, though with very different requirements set out for the various categories and ages of welfare recipients. This coerciveness is to be offset by the initiative’s adaptive elements: the emphasis on ‘participation’ as a community value, the sensitivity to the specific, local circumstances of participants, and the customising of active participation and tailored assistance to certain groups within the community.

The establishment of equitable participation and ownership by the community is imperative to the ethical success of this initiative, as well as the development of a compliance system that is genuinely responsive to the community’s circumstances. There is scope for this to occur within the proposed model. As the Report states:

… the people at Mutitjulu desire to participate not only in a program of activities, but in the choice of activities, in benefits of the program, in the implementation and planning of the program, in decision-making about program objectives and guidelines, and in monitoring and evaluating outcomes. … the people at Mutitjulu desire to participate not only in a program of activities, but in the choice of activities, in benefits of the program, in the implementation and planning of the program, in decision-making about program objectives and guidelines, and in monitoring and evaluating outcomes. [74]

An equitable community process that ensures individual rights and entitlements could be implemented through such features as: ongoing community consultation and education about the program; flexibility to apply measures according to individual circumstances; [75] personalised support and dispute resolution in response to non-compliance; reporting of all approved breaches approved to the Community Council and to Centrelink; and the right to appeal through community-based mechanisms to the Council delegate, and beyond the Council to Centrelink, the Administrative Appeals Tribunal or an independent arbitrator.

The development of this initiative with a view to establishing strong community governance structures in the future is emphasised. [76] In addition, any surplus income acquired as a result of breaching processes might be retained in a community fund and directed towards such purposes as community development and family well-being.

Breaching

The use of breaching as a means of increasing participation should be handled with sensitivity as its effectiveness is still being contested. In the interests of establishing equity there need to be clear commitments (at the very least) from other national and local ‘partners’ to ensure their compliance with the model and support for Anangu aspirations, to make good the Report’s claim that ‘[a]s equal partners with the community, government and local agencies are in fact seen as being another class of participants’. [77]

Other contextual factors that require attention are the difficulty of sustaining a unified, whole-of-community approach, given the heterogeneity and mobility of the Mutitjulu community residents, and the need for separate initiatives to target other (if inter-related) problems beyond the scope of the model such as family breakdown and substance abuse.

To date the practice of breaching has a track record for further disenfranchising already disadvantaged groups such as Indigenous people and youth. [78] However, the customising of compliance measures to suit the culture and circumstances of individual Indigenous communities through the CPA initiative presents an opportunity for achieving improved outcomes in terms of participation and reduced breaching rates. The transfer of authority for compliance management to the local level also has ‘a potential role to play in devolving jurisdictional areas of welfare service delivery and policy to community management, in a collaborative partnership between communities and government. [79]

Time-frame

Equitable participation by all partners should be further reinforced by ensuring that the model is applied to meet assessable goals and objectives over a prescribed time-frame. The Report puts forward fifteen goals indicative of the outcomes the community wishes to achieve through participation in training, employment and other participation activities consistent with their social, cultural, and economic circumstances and values. While some of these goals, such as reforming community governance and capacity-building, can be linked to a long-term vision for the community, it is important that any projected outcomes be assessed against a prescribed time-frame for achieving equity for the group.

Otherwise, the model stands to repeat the more negative aspects of the CDEP scheme as a ‘lifetime destination’ without achieving any further degree of self-determination, self-management, community development or governance. There would need to be clarity about what form of commitment various partners are prepared to make, particularly in regard to the implementation of the model over a period of time and the level of resources required, and careful monitoring of all partners’ participation as well as the flexibility to make any necessary re-adjustments to the model.

There also needs to be a commitment from government beyond the 4-year funding period of Budget 2Ѻs welfare reform package to ensure the effectiveness of the initiative, such as the 5-10 year period proposed by the Report, which observes that:

The recent government announcement that ATSIC will undertake the development of some 100 Community Participation Agreements has been made in the absence of any underlying program support for the initiative. The mooted Agreements will require a range of service and program support that is currently distributed across different departments and agencies. Immediate coordination and planning is needed at the national level... [80]

Transferability of the model to other communities

A further issue raised by the model is that of its transferability to other contexts. Certain elements of the Mutitjulu model such as the changes to the SSA and government policy have broader implications for other potentially participating communities. In the interests of achieving effective participation, it is essential that flexibility in design of CPAs be promoted and that no one model should become prescriptive or definitive. While some remote Indigenous communities share similar economic opportunities to the Mutitjulu community, there are other communities that may require even greater support from government in order to achieve worthwhile outcomes.

ATSIC has stated that this constitutes a challenge at the level of planning for specific community initiatives:

In developing plans, there needs to be an understanding of the physical, political, economic and social environment relevant to the plan, and an assessment at every stage of the capacity of the ‘individual’ and ‘community’ to participate/own the plan. That is, a capacity building plan has to be defined with sustainable goals laid out within realistic and acceptable time frames. In developing plans, there needs to be an understanding of the physical, political, economic and social environment relevant to the plan, and an assessment at every stage of the capacity of the ‘individual’ and ‘community’ to participate/own the plan. That is, a capacity building plan has to be defined with sustainable goals laid out within realistic and acceptable time frames. [81]

Consideration might also be given to adapting the CPA initiative for other areas, such as rural and urban, in the way that the CDEP Scheme has been translated to contexts other than the remote area where it had its origins. There are also prospective linkages with other initiatives such as the Queensland government’s Ten Year Partnership with Indigenous communities, the Family Income Management trials developed with Noel Pearson and other capacity building initiatives supported through the Stronger Families and Communities Strategy, as well as potential for communication with others involved in the evolution of other similar models and agreements. Another appropriate linkage would be for ATSIC to consider the CPA initiative in conjunction with any Indigenous governance arrangements emerging through its work on regional autonomy.

One of the most positive aspects of the Mutitjulu model is the potential level of choice it presents as an adaptation of a government policy initiative in which Indigenous people are able to some degree to direct policies and programs to achieve specific outcomes that will effect change to their circumstances. The Agreement model adapts and capitalises on elements of the government’s approach to welfare reform such as increasing participation at the community level and ‘facilitating direct involvement by community-based providers in “a key role in the whole gamut” of “policy advice, programme design, programme implementation and service delivery”’ to offer specific, culturally and locationally-sensitive and flexible solutions to the Anangu’s welfare and employment issues. One of the most positive aspects of the Mutitjulu model is the potential level of choice it presents as an adaptation of a government policy initiative in which Indigenous people are able to some degree to direct policies and programs to achieve specific outcomes that will effect change to their circumstances. The Agreement model adapts and capitalises on elements of the government’s approach to welfare reform such as increasing participation at the community level and ‘facilitating direct involvement by community-based providers in “a key role in the whole gamut” of “policy advice, programme design, programme implementation and service delivery”’ to offer specific, culturally and locationally-sensitive and flexible solutions to the Anangu’s welfare and employment issues.

While each community participating in the CPA initiative will want to tailor Agreements to suit their own local circumstances, they will inevitably also have to address the same core issues with respect to welfare reform concerning administrative and funding frameworks, and procedural arrangements. It is likely that some of the same overarching solutions being considered by the Mutitjulu Community will be relevant and transferable.

One concern this approach raises is whether the dominant public policy paradigm of welfare reform with its values of mutual obligation and self-reliance might inevitably overshadow the cultural and traditional values held by the community including the degree of self-determination ascribed to the notion of participation. In addition, if the CPA initiative is really to be of value to Indigenous communities, measures should be taken to ensure that it does not repeat or embed the longstanding difficulties accompanying the community services model and that instead, equitable participation by all partners is guaranteed, and strategies for progressing effective forms of capacity-building and governance over the long term that further Indigenous self-determination are implemented.

Whatever the future level of success of the CPA initiative, Indigenous people should not be restricted to one model as a means of pursuing greater autonomy and control over their affairs. Other initiatives for furthering Indigenous capacity and governance, including those based in native title, should also be encouraged.

Yenbena Indigenous Training Centre

Yenbena Indigenous Training Centre is located at Barmah near Echuca in northern Victoria. It provides an example of best practice in relation to increased and targeted employment and training outcomes for Indigenous people, community participation and capacity-building. [83]

Yenbena is an initiative of the Yorta Yorta Nation Aboriginal Corporation (YYNAC), the Australian National Training Authority (ANTA) and the Victorian Aboriginal Education Association Incorporated (VAEAI). It is informed by the commitment of the Yorta Yorta people to self-determination at the local level, which they have also pursued through a native title application over their country.

The Yorta Yorta Aboriginal Community has in excess of 4,000 people, and their determination area covers 2,000-3,000 square kilometres of crown land from both New South Wales and Victoria in the mid-Murray region. The area ‘represent[s] less than 10 per cent of what Yorta Yorta consider is theirs by tradition…. [it is] a patchwork quilt of public lands and waters within their traditional territorial boundaries’. [84] 84">[84] The traditional rights to country encompassed by Yorta Yorta native title comprise ‘rights to possession, occupation, use and enjoyment of the determination area, the waters, and natura [85]

On 18 December 1998 Olney J determined that native title did not exist in relation to the lands and waters in the determination area, against which the Yorta Yorta filed an appeal five weeks later. The Appeal was dismissed by a two to one majority of the Full Court of the Federal Court on 8 February 2001. Special leave to appeal to the High Court was granted on 14 December 2001. This sequence of events has not deterred the Yorta Yorta Aboriginal community from seeking to exercise their traditional rights and culture, most recently through local arrangements in relation to employment and training in addition to their native title application.

Yenbena Indigenous Training Centre, which has been in operation since March 2001, has been established by YYNAC through drawing on a mixture of Commonwealth and State funds to provide targeted and culturally appropriate training to Indigenous young people. Essentially this initiative seeks to ‘fill the gaps’ where the Commonwealth is not providing appropriate funding or programs to meet Indigenous employment needs.

The view of the Yorta Yorta Aboriginal community was that Commonwealth programs such as Work for the Dole and CDEP do not at present provide adequate skilling and mentoring for successful transition from mutual obligation-type activities to employment. Some frustration was expressed with the tendency of CDEP to obscure rather than genuinely address Indigenous unemployment need.

As an alternative, the community sought funding from the Community Jobs Program, a Victorian government Employment and Skills Policy initiative, with a view to tailoring a training program to meet their own needs. The program is aimed at ‘breaking down the employment barriers that prevent people from gaining employment, particularly in communities that are disadvantaged and/or are in areas of high unemployment’. [86] It funds not-for-profit incorporated community-based organizations, local governments, federal/state government agencies, statutory authorities and regional development organizations to employ local jobseekers on community projects.

Projects are to employ 12 or more jobseekers aged 15 years and above, and must provide community benefit. Training is to be delivered by a Registered Training Organisation (RTO) and sponsor organization. Sponsor organizations must ‘ensure that prospective participants have been unemployed for more than 6 months during the last 12 months or are unemployed and are “at risk” of long-term unemployment’. [87] f="#87">[87] It is not necessary for unemployed participants to be registered with a Job Network provider or to be receiving assistance from Centrelink, although those who are receiving Job Search Training or Intensive Assistance from a Job Network provider are eligible for the Program. Grant funds are to be used as a contribution towards wage and associated costs of participants and supervisor/s, with sponsor organizations covering further costs through covered through contributions o [88] Support is available for 2-3 years development of the program.

Yenbena was registered as an RTO with YYNAC as a sponsor organization under the State Training Board of Victoria. [89] Registration involves proving that the sponsor organization is capable of delivering training, including meeting a minimum performance standard, ensuring payment of participants under the appropriate award and receipt of relevant benefits and allowances, and compliance with all legislative requirements. The organization must also purchase nationally-recognised training courses, some of which are state-owned (such as Certificate I in Koorie Education and Certification III in Aboriginal Site Conservation).

Currently the Training Centre offers the following courses within a twelve-month period: Coorong Tongala (Koorie Education), Business (Office Administration), Business Administration, Community Work, Horticulture, Agriculture, Site Conservation, Horticulture, and Assessment and Workplace Training. The courses were purchased in response to the needs for training and mentoring identified by the Yorta Yorta Aboriginal community, and as a result of targeting the local resources available for providing employment and training opportunities. For example, business administration courses were introduced to cater for identified needs for training in administration, information technology and literacy skills in local organizations; site conservation was linked to an agreement with VicRoads for the Yorta Yorta to monitor country during VicRoads works.

All training modules are linked to placements and each employee has a pathway in which future jobs are identified. [90] The program also provides an opportunity for those who may have had some work experience (such as casual office work in a community organization) to receive formal accreditation for their skills.

Yenbena is more like a flexible learning centre than a training centre, and it makes use of community venues and non-institutional atmospheres. Only specific training (mainly administrative) takes place within the Centre itself; most time is spent in placements. It uses a work-based learning model with ‘hands-on’ training that links groups to different community organizations. Groups are small (no greater than 4 participants) which offers increased opportunities for mentoring and participation.

The flexibility of the program enables the Yorta Yorta Aboriginal community to integrate cultural knowledge with training for participants without having to create a separate opportunity. For example, courses (such as communication skills, business administration and community work) can be customised to suit the local context and provide culturally-specific training. All staff, students and mentors at Yenbena are Indigenous, and training seeks to draw on community support networks and values. Integral values are the importance of working and training as part of a community, and learning as a ‘natural way of life’. Elders also play a significant role through participating as trainers and mentors.

Yenbena training arrangements operate on a trust basis, and are underpinned by the community’s support for the younger generation’s participation and development. ‘Breaching’ and other forms of compliance are not applied - while the majority of participants have been previously unemployed or are school leavers, none are in receipt of a social security allowance - and the community does not have any plans to develop measures to ensure participation. Fees for participants are currently waived, so youth who are asset- and skills-poor are not financially burdened.

To date, 8 out of 12 participants have found employment, one as a ranger for Parks Victoria. Although participants are able to seek outside employment, it is envisaged that skills learnt will be invested back into the community – for example, through employment within existing organisations and arrangements or through future enterprises.

One of the perceived advantages of the Community Jobs Program is its adaptability and the opportunity this provides to empower people to look after their own community. The Program encourages the development of projects linked to other infrastructure related initiatives funded by the State or Federal Government, [91] and it is envisaged that future courses will be developed that build linkages with other enterprises in the area such as aquaculture, hospitality and tourism. The idea is that Yenbena will enable YYNAC to ‘care for the mob’ by developing an economic base, and become an incubator for getting into small business and enterprises along family lines, and in doing so, provide a model for other Indigenous groups. Existing properties owned by YYNAC may also be utilised for training and business enterprises as well as non-profit community activities such as retreats for elders and youths.

Some of the impetus for establishing the training program came from an agreement between VicRoads, Rumbalara Aboriginal Cooperative and the Yorta Yorta Nation Aboriginal Corporation (the ‘Murchison East Deviation Project Agreement – Cultural Heritage and Environment’) that relates specifically to cultural heritage management and the monitoring of country where road works are taking place. This Agreement acknowledges the Yorta Yorta peoples’ ‘right to protect Yorta Yorta Cultural Heritage, their affinity with and relationship to the land, and their interest in the protection of the Environment’. [92] . [92] The agreement also provides finances for monitoring services: under the Agreement YYNAC is to appoint a suitable number of representatives to act as monitors for the project, and fees are payable to YYNAC ‘for all consultation, monitoring and work of relevance to the Agreement, carried out for and on behalf of it by any and each of its representatives’, [93] This provides a training and employment pathway for Yorta Yorta people through its linkage to Certificate III in the Aboriginal Site Conservation offered by Yenbena Training Centre. It also creates an opportunity for elders in the community to pass on their cultural knowledge to a younger generation.

The VicRoads Agreement includes weekly meetings between VicRoads and YYNAC, and the delivery of cultural awareness training by YYNAC to relevant VicRoads employees and contractors. There is a further arrangement between YYNAC and Rumbalara Football and Netball Club (Rumbalara Aboriginal Cooperative) for the Club facilities to be used to support training and lease a vehicle. This arrangement was initially supported by Koori Economic Employment training Agency (KEETA) and seeded with funds from DEWRSB’s Structured Training and Employment Projects (‘STEP’) initiative which provides ‘flexible financial assistance for projects [between private sector employers and Indigenous communities] that offer structured training for 5 or more people [94] over a 12-month period - in this instance, support for providing equipment, clothing, mentoring and evaluation.

YYNAC hope that the VicRoads Agreement will set a precedent for other Indigenous people, agencies and stakeholders for making agreements about Indigenous interests in Victoria, and in doing so, create further employment pathways. [95] While the current Victorian government has advocated a ‘whole-of-government’ approach to Aboriginal affairs, including cultural heritage, the Yorta Yorta community claim that it has had little impact, that the majority of government departments are yet to participate in this approach and that agreements are currently a more effective way of responding to developments.

The Agreement also provides a vehicle for recognition of the Yorta Yorta Aboriginal community’s traditional rights and interests in the area. This initiative is grounded in their native title application, which has been a rallying point for the Yorta Yorta in the area – one comment made by elders in reference to the development of the community’s employment and training initiatives was ‘without native title, we may not have been there’.

The VicRoads Agreement and the Training Centre both come under the jurisdiction of the Yorta Yorta Council of Elders. The Yorta Yorta Nation Aboriginal Corporation is a prescribed body corporate as defined in the Native Title Act 1993 and its regulations, which was established in November 1998 under the Aboriginal Councils and Associations Act 1976 . Within the Corporation, the Council of Elders comprising representatives from the sixteen traditional Yorta Yorta family groupings plays a key role in decision-making processes, particularly those relating to native title rights and interests. A separate Governing Committee based on the same representational lines is responsible for the Corporation’s administrative functions and reports to the Council of Elders. Both the Council of Elders and the Governing Committee are able to appoint subcommittees relating to the management of specific issues – the Yenbena Training Centre, for example, has a subcommittee of elders, community representatives and specialists that reports jointly to the Governing Committee and the Council of Elders.

The local Aboriginal community organisations of Rumbalara Aboriginal Cooperative in the Shepparton district and Njernda Aboriginal Corporation in the Echuca district are responsible for the protection of cultural heritage matters within their districts. Both these organisations have acknowledged the Yorta Yorta Council of Elders as having the traditional role in speaking for country and respect all decisions made by the Council of Elders. This arrangement links the section of the Commonwealth Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Act 1984 (Section 21 Part IIA) relevant to cultural heritage in Victoria to the traditional interests in country represented in YYNAC. While this Act ‘acknowledges Aboriginal people in Victoria as the rightful owners of their culture and heritage and consequently provides legislative entitlement to their full control and management of decisions affecting this heritage [96] [96] the areas and bodies designated for protection of cultural heritage do not necessarily operate in accordance with traditional affili [97]

YYNAC has been able, however, to protect the traditional interests of the Yorta Yorta peoples it represents and create further employment opportunities through the administrative arrangements it has developed as a prescribed body corporate and through the development of protocols with the local Aboriginal Cooperatives.

YYNAC’s employment and training arrangements are a response to current shortfalls in coordination of Commonwealth and State agencies and services, and the lack of definite employment pathways provided by existing Commonwealth programs. It is also a model that draws consciously on Noel Pearson’s philosophy of reciprocity – the Yorta Yorta Aboriginal community are supportive of his articulation of community participation and self-determination - and is geared towards the development of social entrepreneurship and venture philanthropy in the near future.

Moreover, the grounding of Yenbena in the Yorta Yorta Aboriginal community’s traditional interests in country and self-determination provides an integral source of identity and cohesion for this initiative. While this initiative is creative, self-directing and enterprising, its deployment of a patchwork of funding to achieve its goals reflects the (time and energy intensive) predicament of many Indigenous organisations and communities in doing the rounds of government and other funding bodies.

Indigenous groups and communities should be free to pursue self-determination and self-government through the governance arrangements they find most appropriate to their circumstances. They should not be limited to whatever policy prescriptions for ‘self-determination’, ‘self-reliance’ or ‘participation’ are in vogue but be able to determine what forms of representation, structures and processes are suitable to their particular group’s needs and distinct characteristics. However, as noted earlier in this chapter, there is a role for government to play in resourcing the development of any new Indigenous governance arrangements including a case for the centralised transfer of resources to communities and regions by Commonwealth agencies for the purposes of community development and increased governance. The conditions for receipt of any transfer of resources should in turn be responsive to the needs and aspirations of specific Indigenous groups for self-sufficiency and self-determination. In the Canadian context the transfer of resources has been linked to the recognition of native title rights and Indigenous self-government. In the face of growing interest within the Australian context in the potential for increased Indigenous governance and capacity-building, it is important not to lose sight of the place of the exercise of traditional rights and culture and the need for any new governance arrangements to be accompanied by recognition of the jurisdictional responsibilities, distinct rights and status of Indigenous peoples.

Governance and capacity-building – Future challenges

The need for effective remedies and participation by Indigenous people in addressing longstanding disadvantage through such means as capacity-building and self-governance is justly receiving greater attention. Consideration of these strategies, particularly as part of the reconciliation process, requires that further recognition and commitment be given to the long-term nature of these processes, through the adoption ‘on a whole of government basis, [of] long-term policies that identify overcoming Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander disadvantage as a national priority’. [98]

Substantial long-term commitments that provide a framework for progressing some of the outstanding issues facing Indigenous people, as well as providing recognition to the distinct position and status of Indigenous peoples have been largely absent from the relationship between Indigenous and non-Indigenous peoples. Their implementation is long overdue.

Partnerships between Indigenous and other stakeholders have become an accepted part of government policy for promoting better outcomes in service delivery. However, in order for there to be substantial progress in the ‘reconciliation relationship’, these arrangements need to be equitable in so far as they recognise and respond adequately and progressively to the historically-derived disadvantage experienced by Indigenous peoples.

If welfare reform is to provide greater opportunities for Indigenous participation, then government must take the need for reform of existing funding and administrative arrangements seriously. It must recognise the part the current community services model has played in generating Indigenous welfare dependency and move beyond this to find ways of developing and resourcing Indigenous capacity-building and governance arrangements that will provide an adequate basis for economic development and self-sufficiency. In doing so, it must also take up the challenge of facilitating rather than repressing the recognition of the specific characteristics and aspirations of Indigenous cultures and societies in Australia. As ATSIC’s Rights Framework states:

Properly constructed grounded governance mechanisms will facilitate credible decision making processes that will withstand scrutiny and consolidate the authority of the individual, family and community in matters of significance. They will also reflect a cohesive approach amongst members of particular groups in matters of mutual interest without compromising our right to self-determination. Further, such governance mechanisms will assist in the development of processes and structures that enable self-government arrangements and promote regional autonomy in decision making processes and service delivery. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples assert our right to self-determine the governance structures of our communities . [99]

1 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Justice Commissioner, Social Justice Report 2000 , HREOC, Sydney, 2000, (Herein Social Justice Report 2000 ), p107.

2 ATSIC, ‘Discussion paper on ATSIC’s approach to community capacity building’, unpublished paper, ATSIC, Canberra, 2001, p1.

3 ATSIC, ‘Regional autonomy for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities – Discussion paper’, ATSIC, Canberra, September 1999, p22.

4 Social Justice Report 2000, Chapter 4.

5 For full recommendations, see ibid, pp130-132, www.humanrights.gov.au/social_justice/sj_report/chap4.html#ch4_recommend

6 Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody, National Report – Volume 4 /em>, AGPS, Canberra, 1991, p21. Other Reports that have raised similar concer Attorney-General’s Department Review ߋ Review of the Aboriginal Councils and Associations Act Final Report 1995 99 Report of the Special Auditor 1996, Reports of the Auditor-General; Review of financial accountability requirements of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Island Councils, ATSIC Report on Greater Regional Autonomy omy. For some discussion see Resourcing Indigenous development and self-determination – a scoping paper , ATSIC, Canberra, 2000, Appendix 2 – ‘Some recent reports dealing with Indigenous funding issues’.

7 ibid , piv.

8 ibid, p22.

9 ibid.

10 ibid , p4.

11 Social Justice Report 2000 , p28.

12 Daes, E, Discrimination against Indigenous people – Explanatory note concerning the draft declaration on the rights of Indigenous peoples , UN Doc E/CN.4/Sub.2/1993/26/Add.1, 19 July 1993, para 26.

13 For further discussion, see Social Justice Report 2000, pp112-21.

14 ATSIC, Resourcing Indigenous development and self-determination – a scoping paper, op.cit , pv.

15 ATSIC, Directions for change , ATSIC, Canberra, 2001, p9.

16 Commonwealth Grants Commission (CGC), Report on Indigenous funding 2001 , CGC, Canberra 2001 (Herein CGC, Report on Indigenous funding ), pxii.

17 ibid, p90.

18 ibid.

19 ibid, p89.

20 ibid.

21 ibid.

22 ibid , p94.

23 ATSIC, Resourcing Indigenous development and self-determination – a scoping paper, op.cit , pvi.

24 CGC, Report on Indigenous funding , p95.

25 ibid .

‘Discussion paper on ATSIC’s approach to community capacity building’, op.cit 26 ATSIC, ‘Discussion paper on ATSIC’s approach to community capacity building’, op.cit

Australians working together – Helping people to move forward, Fact Sheet 20 27 Vanstone, the Hon A, and Abbott, the Hon T, ‘The Prime Minister’s community business partnership – Working Australians working together – Helping people to move forward, Fact Sheet 20 www.together.gov.au/GovernmentStatement/FactSheets/FS20.asp (20 December 2001).

‘Discussion paper on ATSIC’s approach to community capacity building’, op.cit, 28 ATSIC, ‘Discussion paper on ATSIC’s approach to community capacity building’, op.cit,

29 Reconciliation Australia, Strategic plan 2001-2003 , Reconciliation Australia, Canberra 2001, para 1.4.

30 ibid. The conference, Understanding and implementing good governance for Indigenous communities and regions , will be convened by Reconciliation Australia, ATSIC and the National Institute for Governance at the University of Canberra in April 2002.

31 ibid.

32 COAG, Communiqué November 2000, p5. www.pmc.gov.au/docs/coag031100.cfm (11 December 2001).

33 ATSIC, ‘Discussion paper on ATSIC’s approach to community capacity bu , op.cit , pp4-5.

34 CGC, Report on Indigenous funding , p10.

35 ibid.

36 ATSIC, Resourcing Indigenous development and self-determination – a scoping paper, op.cit , p14.

37 An example of the former is the proposals developed by the Combined Aboriginal Nations of Central Australia for governance on their own land base; of the latter, the establishment of the shire of Ngaanyatjarraku in Western Australia.

38 ATSIC, Resourcing Indigenous development and self-determination – a scoping paper, op.cit , ppv-vi.

39 ibid , p7.

40 ibid , pv.

41 ibid , pvi.

42 Pearson, N, Our right to take responsibility: Discussion paper , Noel Pearson and Associates, Cairns, 1999, p57.

43 ibid , pp56-8.

44 Smith, D, The Mutitjulu community participation and partnership agreement, unpublished material , CAEPR, Canberra, 2001, p1.

45 ibid.

46 ibid, pp14-15.

47 ibid , p10.

48 ibid, p11-13.

49 ibid, p26.

50 ATSIC, ‘Discussion paper on ATSIC’s approach to community capacity buil op.cit , p5.

51 Smith, D, op.cit, p 2.

52 A number of the Community Participation and Partnership Agreement’s components, such as increased community control through the community gateway; education, employment and training options; partnerships with local stakeholders; and the consolidated block funding and acquittal package are similar to the issues negotiated in other agreements, often in the context of native title. See, for example, Craig, D, and Jull, P, ‘Regional agreements – Options for Australian Indigenous peoples& ATSIC regional agreements seminar, Cairns, 29-31 May 1995, ATSIC, Canberra, 1995, erra, 1995, pp11 Recognition, rights and reform: Report to government on native title social justice measures easures, Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra, 1995, p57, which discusses the Commonwealth’s government’s potential role in facilitating regional agreements as part of a social justice package, and the Council for Aborigi National strategy for achieving economic independence ic independence, ‘The www.austlii.edu.au/au/other/IndigLRes/car/ 2000/7/ pg4.htm Res/car/ 2000/7/ pg4.htm (10 November 2001). For research into the need for improved financial management options for Indigenous people, see Westbury, N, ‘Myth-making and the delivery of banking and financial services to Indigenous Australians in regional and remote Australia
The Indigenous welfare economy and the CDEP scheme , research monograph no.20, CAEPR, Canberra, 2001, pp81-93, and McDonnell, S, and Westbury, N, ‘Giving credit where it’s due: A study of the delivery of banking and financial services to Indigenous Australians in rural and remote Australia’, discussion paper no.218, CAEPR, Canberra, 2001.

53 Smith, D, op.cit , p39.

54 Pearson, P, op.cit , p74. See also Murdi Paaki Regional Council plan’s use of community working parties, as discussed Social Justice Report 2000 , pp116-17.

55 Martin, D, ‘Is welfare dependency “welfare poison”? An assessment of Noel Pearson’s proposals for Aboriginal welfare reform’, discussion paper no. 213/2001, CAEPR, Canberra, 2001, p19.

56 A potential vehicle for ongoing ownership and evaluation of Mutitjulu CPA could be the provided by the establishment of a community process ‘in conjunction with ATSIC and Centrelink, to monitor the process and evaluate the range of outcomes from a Community Participation Agreement.’ Smith, D, op.cit, p70.

57 Martin, cited in Atkinson, J, ‘Violence against Aboriginal women: Reconstitution of community law – way forward’ (August-September 2 Indigenous Law Bulletin , p20.

58 Smith, D, ‘Community Participation Agreements: A model for welfare reform from community-based research’, CAEPR discussion paper No.223/2001, CAEPR, Canberra, 2001, p38.

59 Smith, D, The Mutitjulu community participation and partnership agreement, op.cit, p44.

60 ATSIC, Resourcing Indigenous development and self-determination – a scoping paper, op.cit , piv.

61 Social Justice Report 2000 , p26.

62 Smith, D, ‘Community Participation Agreements’, op.cit , p39.

63 Smith, D, The Mutitjulu community participation and partnership agreement, op.cit, p23.

64 McClure, P, (Chair), Participation Support for a more equitable society: Final report of the reference group on welfare reform, Department of Family and Community Services, Canberra, July 2000, p42.

65 ibid , pp48-9.

66 ibid, p32.

67 ibid.

68 Smith, D, ‘Community Participation Agreements’, op.cit , p44.

69 ibid, p42.

70 ibid.

71 ibid, p33. See Sanders, W, Unemployment payments, the Activity Test and Indigenous Australians: Understanding breach rates, research monograph no. 15/1999, CAEPR, Canberra, 1999.

72 In its general recommendation XXIV the CERD Committee observes ‘that a differentiation of treatment will not constitute discrimination if the criteria for such differentiation, judged against the objectives and purposes of the Convention are legitimate.’ Cited in Race Discrimination Commissioner, The CDEP Scheme and racial discrimination, Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra, 1997, p41.

73 An earlier report on the Mutitjulu community comments: ‘There is a sadness and helplessness experienced by many of the older generation… which has grown in response to a perceived inability to influence and take control of the future of the community and provide something better for the next generation.’ Durnan, B, and Wynter Hill Consulting Team, ‘The red plan. A training and employment plan for the Mutitjulu Community Council, Uluru,’ unpublished report to the Community Council Mutitjulu, 1997, The Mutitjulu community participation and partnership agreement, op.cit , p19.

74 ibid, p25.

75 The Report states: ‘from no compliance requirements for the aged and disabled, through to full monitoring of compliance for others. ibid, p56.

76 ibid.

77 Smith, D, The Mutitjulu community participation and partnership agreement, op.cit , p25.

78 See discussion in Chapter 2. For further information, see ACOSS, ‘Breaching the safety net: the harsh impact of social security penalties’ ACOSS I www.acoss.org.au/info/2001/305x.htm (14 December 2001).

79 Smith, D, ‘Community Participation Agreements’, op.cit , p42.

80 ibid , p67.

81 ibid , p3.

82 ibid, p27.

83 Material for this section was provided through discussions and consultation with representatives from Yorta Yorta Nation Aboriginal Corporation, VicRoads and Rumbalara Aboriginal Cooperative.

84 Arnold Bloch Leibler, ‘Briefing paper on the Yorta Yorta native title determination application’, unpublished paper, para 2.

85 ibid , para 4.

86 Department of Education, Employment and Training (DEET), State Government Victoria, Community Jobs Program Guidelines, July 2001, para 1.1. The Program targets Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islanders as a long-term unemployed group.

87 ibid , para 3.6.

88 ibid, para 7.1, 7.2.

89 The Yenbena building itself has been funded through Australian National Training Authority and Victorian DEET Projects and Programs.

90 CJP requires that: ‘Work experience provided to the project participants is to be integrated with the provision of accredited skill development and linked to ongoing employment opportunities.’ op.cit , para 1.12.

91 ibid, para 1.11.

92 Murchison East Deviation Cultural Heritage and Environmental Agreement, between VicRoads and Yorta Yorta Nation Aboriginal Corporation, unpublished, 3 May 2001, preamble.

93 ibid, para 24.1.

94 Indigenous Employment Policy, www.workplace.gov.au/Indigenous.asp (29/10/01), pp2-3.

95 To date, YYNAC has made three other agreements with Gas Corp, Goulburn Murray Waters and Murray Goulburn Dairy. They recently participated as a member of the Murray and Lower Darling Indigenous Nations Confederation in an All of Nations Agreement with the Department of Waters, NSW, and the Murray Darling Basin Commission, signing off on plans for water and resource management. The Murray and Lower Darling Indigenous Nations Confederation permits individual Indigenous groups to determine their own activities in their particular area.

96 Finalyson, J, ‘Indigenous heritage protection, native title and regional agreements: the changing environment’, discussion paper no. 145/1997, CAEPR, Canberra, 1997, p5.

97 While the National Native Title Tribunal does not recognise YYNAC as holding native title interests on trust for the Yorta Yorta peoples due to the current status of the Yorta Yorta native title application, the corporation continues to receive future act notifications from time to time through means other than from the Tribunal.

98 Recommendation 1 of last year Social Justice Report 2000 , p130.

99 ATSIC, ‘Our rights: our lives: our way: ATSIC rights framework’, National Policy Office, Canberra, June 2001, p16.