Skip to main content

Search

Social Justice Report 2006: Information Sheet 4: Indigenous perspectives on Shared Responsibility Agreements (SRAs)

Social Justice Report 2006

  • Back to Contents
  • Information Sheet
    4:
    Indigenous perspectives on Shared Responsibility Agreements (SRAs)

    back to media pack

    Background

    Shared
    Responsibility Agreements (SRAs) have been promoted as one of the key approaches
    to develop mutual obligation for the delivery of services over and above basic
    citizenship entitlements.

    SRAs provide one of the main tools through which
    regional Indigenous Coordination Centres (ICCs) engage with Indigenous
    communities or organisations at the local level, alongside the continued
    administration of existing grant
    processes.

    Conclusions of the national survey
    of Indigenous communities that have entered into SRAs

    The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Justice
    Commissioner conducted a national survey of Indigenous families and communities
    that had entered into an SRA before January
    2006.

    The questions focussed on the content of the SRA, the
    negotiation process and people’s views on the SRA process and outcomes. At
    the close of the survey 67 responses were received, with a 62 percent response
    rate.

    From the survey responses it appears that most people
    were generally positive about the process and report improvements in their
    relationships with government. Indigenous Coordination Centres (ICCs) were also
    generally seen by the respondents as providing an effective link between
    government and local Indigenous
    communities.

    However, those communities that did
    not view the process in a positive light had quite significant complaints about
    the process, responsiveness of government and outcomes. Community confidence and
    satisfaction in the SRA process was limited by the short-term nature of the
    funding, the bureaucratic burden of additional paperwork, disproportionate
    accountability requirements, lack of flexibility once the agreement is signed,
    and unrealistic expectations of the community party of the SRA.

    Valuable lessons to be learnt from the feedback provided
    in the survey include:

    • The quality of support, consultation and information
      provided to Indigenous peoples is very important and should be improved to
      enable more effective and informed participation in the negotiation
      process.
    • There is considerable scope for further community
      development and capacity building (on the part of communities and ICC staff) to
      enable communities to make the most of the opportunities presented by the SRA
      scheme.

    Overall, the survey results
    suggest that SRAs have the potential to create or improve relationships between
    the government and communities when they are done well. However, done poorly or
    without adequate consultation, they have the potential to create disenchantment
    amongst the community that may prove difficult to overcome in the
    future.

    A more comprehensive discussion of the SRA survey
    findings can be found in Chapter 3 of the Social Justice Report
    2006
    .

    Shared Responsibility Agreements – some common
    elements

    In addition to the national survey, three
    interview-based case studies were undertaken in the following relatively remote
    communities with differing agreement contents.

    • Girringun Aboriginal Corporation, Cardwell,
      Queensland;
    • Cape Barren Island, Tasmania; and
    • Baddagun Aboriginal Organisation, Innisfail, Far North
      Queensland.

    Overall, the case studies revealed that these Indigenous
    communities regard the SRA process as ad hoc, short-sighted, and lacking in
    strategies that could address the need for sustainable economic development
    opportunities for Indigenous communities.

    These case studies provide insight into community
    perceptions and possible improvements of the SRA process, including the
    following:

    • Communities expect government to listen to them
      throughout the SRA, not just in the preliminary stages of the implementation
      process.
    • Where the government may see the SRA as being a
      ‘single issue’ or one-off project, the community sees the SRA within
      the broader context of the overall needs of the community.
    • Outcomes of SRAs also need to be defined in a way that
      they are delivering the maximum benefit to the community, not merely based on a
      strict compliance mentality.
    • The limitations of the SRA process need to be stated
      clearly at the outset to ensure that it does not become the default process for
      addressing complex issues that it cannot resolve.

    Further information on the SRA case
    studies can be found in Chapter 3 of the Social Justice Report 2006.