Executive Summary
Introduction
HREOC has conducted a range of national inquiries into systemic human rights problems. Public inquiries offer HREOC an opportunity to promote an understanding and acceptance of human rights in Australia and to promote public discussion. Principally through media coverage and public forums they publicise both the Commission and the subject of the inquiry, put the subject of the inquiry in a human rights context and framework and engage the public in discussion and debate. For the immediate stakeholders in the subject of an inquiry, the inquiry provides a forum for public expression of views, experiences, opinions and analysis.
In April 2001, HREOC called for expressions of interest in a collaborative project to evaluate its National Inquiry into Rural and Remote Education. The National Inquiry into Rural and Remote Education had the following objectives:
- To gather information,
from policy makers, education providers, education consumers, researchers
and members of the public, about the provision of education in rural
and remote Australia.
- To inform education
stakeholders about the child's human right to education and what education
provision it requires.
- To publicise
the failures in provision and access to education - and the human rights
violations involved - in rural and remote Australia.
- More broadly to
promote (i.e. publicise and provide information about) the rights of
children, the role of the Commission, the relevance of human rights
to the concerns of people in rural and remote areas and the availability
of the Commission to address and promote those concerns.
- To evaluate the
information received within a human rights framework; specifically to
evaluate the provision of education in rural and remote Australia against
the benchmark of the child's right to education as set out in the Convention
on the Rights of the Child and elaborated by the UN Committee on Economic,
Social and Cultural Rights.
- To make practical recommendations for reform and to communicate those effectively to policy makers and legislators.
The Commission's Inquiry into Rural and Remote Education, like other HREOC inquiries, sought to have an impact on human rights through the inquiry process itself and its delivery of recommendations rather than through direct action, the aim of the present project was to evaluate the process of the Inquiry into Rural and Remote Education.
Evaluation Research Method
The evaluation task required a multi-disciplinary approach to comprehensively capture the major and critical issues in access to education for remote and rural Australians. However, more importantly, it required a multi-faceted approach to data collection. A total of 76 people who had participated in the 1999 Inquiry were interviewed about the process of the inquiry in November and December 2001. The site visits were chosen in order to: (a) collect observations and responses from a range of geographic areas where input to the inquiry had been received; (b) to reflect on specific issues that appeared to be geographically specific (on the basis of submissions to the inquiry); (c) Alice Springs and Boggabilla were chosen because they represented two areas where submissions had been made and where there were strong community organisational structures but had not been visited by the inquiry team.
Step One: Collection of background material - HREOC made all existing information available for the evaluation study. The evaluation team also collected new and retrospective opinions of stakeholders and other people involved in carrying out the inquiry.
Step Two: The conceptual component of the inquiry - retracing the conceptual development of the inquiry: in retrospect, was the inquiry process appropriately designed?
Step Three: The input component of the inquiry - review of the information inputs to the inquiry through individuals, documentary evidence and stakeholder submissions.
Step Four: The analysis component of the inquiry - evaluating the interpretation of findings.
Step Five: The output component of the inquiry - evaluation of whether the output was disseminated effectively and appropriately.
Key Issues that Emerged
(1) The Conceptual Component
- The objectives of the inquiry were ambitious, given the complexity of the topic and the limited time and resources available. It was necessary for some difficult operational decisions about how to best utilise the limited time and resources available.
- HREOC was faced with the task of ensuring that the pervasive educational issues faced by Aborigines were adequately presented in the broader human rights context. On one hand there were pressures to focus the inquiry more specifically on Aboriginal issues, but on the other there was pressure to ensure that all target groups remained at the centre of focus. It appears that the Commission's approach worked reasonably well though some approaches in getting to the heart of Aboriginal concerns could have been improved.
- It was clear that HREOC made considerable effort to articulate the view that their inquiry was an attempt to place educational issues in remote Australia in a human rights perspective. However, this particular feature of the inquiry was not widely appreciated throughout the communities visited by the evaluation team.
- The inquiry was broad ranging in terms of the target groups identified and the issues involved. However, there was a challenge for HREOC to convey the message that they could not specifically act on behalf of the target groups - although they could raise the profile of these issues. HREOC appears to have been well aware of this challenge but should continue to make every effort to clarify its role. Perhaps in the future, posters or videos clips could be used to better convey the appropriate message.
- The inquiry was generally welcomed and considered to be timely by all sectors. However, there were mixed experiences in terms of expectations of follow-up.
- One group that appears to have had limited input to the inquiry are migrants from non-English speaking backgrounds. Disabled groups and parents made reasonable input but in the end felt that the inquiry was too broad to serve the needs of their children.
- Although the Commission made considerable use of peak bodies (community and education) to disseminate information and solicit responses, it is clear that this approach needed to be complemented with a bottom-up grass-roots approach. It appears that attempts to draw responses from migrant communities simply through peak bodies and public advertisements was not very effective.
(2) The Input Component
- The promotion of the inquiry was an important part of the process. While HREOC appears to have put considerable effort into promoting word of mouth information to encourage input from Aboriginal communities it appears that, in retrospect, more effort is needed to overcome perceived limited access to information among some Aboriginal communities.
- The Issues Paper could perhaps have been more effective in stimulating input to the inquiry if it had been presented in poster format. While the HREOC team made a decision not to produce a glossy publication it does appear that the more low key but 'texty' publication did not attract a great deal of attention in the more remote Aboriginal communities.
- Co-Commissioners had an exceptionally important and worthwhile role, which could be strengthened in future inquiries. Representativeness of Co-Commissioners was applauded by many respondents but questions were raised as to why there was no full-time Aboriginal Co-Commissioner appointed.
- Some Co-Commissioners clearly felt they did not have sufficient opportunity to contribute in a fuller way to the process. Issues concerning their input included whether an initial meeting should have been held to clarify expectations of their role and whether they could have had more input into the analysis process.
- Holding community meetings always brings up issues of who speaks, who is heard, whether the venue is accessible, whether the news of a meeting reaches the right people, if some people are invited, or not. This inquiry was no exception. Prior consultation with communities helps to identify idiosyncrasies of specific contexts. Where some communities see themselves as subaltern, even more care needs to be taken to ensure their representation.
- Much of the evidence collected through hearings and meetings was set in a context of community politics and broader issues of social exclusion. Whatever the style of meetings they will inevitably provide an appropriate forum for discussion for some people, but a rather foreign forum for others. Inquiries need to remain sensitive to such differences and recognise their potential for reflecting community divisions rather than different perspectives on common issues.
- HREOC anticipated the need to include a range of approaches to complement the information collected at hearings. However, the point to note is that participants in one forum are likely to perceive their experience as the only input and consequently feel generally concerned that it is not sufficient. This suggests the need to continually reinforce the range of inputs to the inquiry overall. No doubt the inquiry team endeavoured to do that, but it appears there is a strong need to reinforce the point that individuals and community groups have a range of options for providing additional input.
- Providing the interests of all are adequately represented it is perhaps of less concern who actually makes the representation. The task for the inquiry is to ensure that all interests are represented. The obvious lesson is that public meetings are limited in what they can be expected to achieve, yet remain an important forum for raising and discussing issues - within the broader process.
- The issues concerning the input component of the inquiry reflect the difficulties of obtaining representative views from heterogeneous communities. These are not unique to this inquiry. More attention needs to be paid to the communication difficulties in remote and rural communities, so that local networks and informal communication mechanisms can be used to greater effect. On the other hand, HREOC appears to have steered a reasonable pathway in dealing sensitively with what was seen to be a complex set of issues.
- For future inquiries it is important to avoid the perception that these exercises are simply a matter of 'a white mob flying in and out' while everything remains the same. It also appears to have been a mistake not to have held some hearings or meetings in Central Australia. This is not to say that hearings should be held everywhere but simply to recognise the significance of Central Australia as an organisational base for many remote communities whose experiences are rather different from those at the 'Top End'.
(3) The Analysis Component
- Some respondents expressed concern that there was not more 'stake-holder' involvement in the analytical process. However, this does not mean that conclusions were perceived as being inappropriate. Rather it is a matter of perceived input.
- Co-Commissioners expressed the view that they could have been more actively involved in the drafting of recommendations.
(4) The Output Component
- There were many positive responses to the inquiry reports referring to their usefulness as tools for teaching. The idea of presenting a number of small booklets rather than one large document appears to have been a good strategy. However, there was concern about the level of distribution of the complementary reports.
- Although respondents were generally pleased with the scope of the inquiry and the way in which the results were disseminated others maintained that highlighting a few issues in each topic area by State may have been much more effective as a means of influencing politicians.
Major Lessons to be Learned
While there was general support for the process adopted by the inquiry there are a number of lessons that HREOC might take into account in future inquiries.
First, some sort of scouting exercise to discuss issues, select appropriate locations and prepare communities, and identify where interpreters would be needed should have preceded the inquiry.
Second, in order to expand participation in the future there is a need to 'go out to' participants and visit them at their working locations.
Third, Co-Commissioners could have been used more effectively to mobilise their networks to promote interest in the inquiry.
Fourth, many people made the point that it is necessary to have 'partner workers' on the ground to facilitate input and planning, before, during and as a follow-up to the inquiry process.
Fifth, the inquiry
could have been better publicised. Various suggestions emerged for a more
strategic approach that would have helped offset the very limited advertising
budget.
