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

Social Justice Report 2006

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.