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.