Overcoming Indigenous Disadvantage - Key Indicators Report 2005: A human rights perspective
Mr Tom Calma , Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Justice Commissioner, Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission
Speech, Overcoming Indigenous Disadvantage report workshop, Sydney
Friday 16 September 2005
I'd like to begin by paying my respects to the traditional owners of the land on which we meet - the Gadigal people of the Eora nation.
I acknowledge the Honourable members of Parliament who are present, distinguished guests, and fellow speakers. I am particularly pleased to see some high level bureaucrats present today, and representatives from the OIPC, ICC's, DEST, DEWR, IBA and ABS through to representatives of state governments, and NGOs, academic and research centres, and members of the Indigenous community. I'd like to welcome you all here today. And I look forward to hearing your views later in the workshop.
We are here to discuss the latest Overcoming Indigenous Disadvantage report . As Social Justice Commissioner, I have a keen interest in reports like this which provide an evidence base that can assist in the discharge of my duties. Recent Social Justice Reports to federal Parliament have provided support for the work of the Productivity Commission and for this framework. It plays a critical role in providing an objective and a strategic overview of how well we are progressing in improving the socio-economic position of Indigenous Australians. The holistic, whole-of-government perspective that the reporting framework provides makes it ideal to measure the cumulative impact of government activity.
It is one of only a few mechanisms that now exist - along with my position - which can provide an independent perspective on how governments are performing on Indigenous affairs.
What I want to discuss today is how we can utilise the valuable information in this report to inform a human rights based approach to addressing Indigenous disadvantage. So, I am going to focus on how we use this report and its framework, rather than focusing on the contents of the report itself. But first, I would make the following comments specifically about the report.
First, the report is dependent on the quality of available data. Both reports produced under the framework to date have noted data quality issues and identified priorities for addressing this. Significant improvements must occur in some areas. Life expectation is an obvious example - being one of the headline Key Indicators. We still face the situation where the underreporting of Indigenous people on death certificates means that the Australian Bureau of Statistics cannot publish with confidence a national life expectation figure for Indigenous peoples.
Governments need to devote greater attention to the findings on data quality contained in this report. They must advance with efforts to improve data collection methods and do so on a consistent, comparable basis. The Australian Bureau of Statistics has a comprehensive indigenous collection program in place stretching over the next decade, but I am sure that with greater support we could see other improvements come to fruition.
Second, a further important issue is how the existing data can be disaggregated down to a regional or local level. The new federal service delivery arrangements, such as Shared Responsibility Agreements and coordination through regional Indigenous Coordination Centres, are based on local level activity. This necessitates local level information from which to assess progress and the effectiveness of government interventions.
But at present there is a disconnection between many programs and activities under the new arrangements and the Key Indicators. In the appendix to this Report for example, the Australian Government indicate that the Office of Indigenous Policy Coordination is developing guidelines on the design of Shared Responsibility Agreement performance indicators which will mirror the Strategic Change Indicators in the framework. I'm not sure that existing data collection methods can be used in this way for many indicators. The evaluation mechanisms put into place for SRAs will be of interest from this perspective. I have to say, however, that the SRAs that my office has analysed to date, are not strong on addressing data limitations or ensuring rigorous, sustainable links to this reporting framework. This is an issue that will no doubt become of greater significance in subsequent editions of this report.
And third, I also want to note that the report represents the lives, the achievements and the difficulties faced by Indigenous peoples. It tells the stories of our children and of our elders. Much of the new data in this latest report is also drawn from the NATSISS (National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Survey) of 2002, in which about 9500 Indigenous people participated. The statistics represent people.
A development in this report, which I welcome very warmly, is the use of case studies illustrating best practice examples on some issues, particularly in relation to governance. I'd like to see this expanded in future reports to provide examples of how communities are dealing with other issues. This contributes to a more positive presentation of Indigenous peoples. And we need this. We need to challenge the picture of Indigenous Australia that is often painted through mainstream media, which is a very negative one.
I would particularly like to see case studies which profile success stories as they are defined by Indigenous peoples themselves. The report is very much a government focused process - which is important. But it is more than this - and I encourage the Productivity Commission to seek a broad engagement with indigenous communities so they can understand the report and contribute to it. Our mob like nothing more than to hear about, to celebrate and to learn from, success by other blackfellas.
I also note that the United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues - to which Mick Dodson is the elected representative of the Indigenous peoples of the Pacific region - convened an international workshop in January last year on data collection and disaggregation for indigenous peoples. This workshop identified the need for full participation of indigenous peoples in all stages of data collection and analysis as an essential component of emerging participatory development practice. In this post-ATSIC world, I think it is important that we ensure that all activities - such as this report - are grounded in consultation and the effective participation of Indigenous peoples.
So then, let us look to the human rights implications of the report and framework. The reporting framework embodies a vision - and one that has been committed to by all governments - that 'Indigenous people will one day enjoy the same overall standard of living as other Australians. They will be as healthy, live as long, and participate fully in the social and economic life of the nation.'
This vision is consistent with a human rights approach, which emphasises the importance of providing equality of opportunity. The human rights system:
- emphasises the accountability of governments for socio-economic outcomes by treating equalisation as a matter of legal obligation, to be assessed against the norms established through the human rights system;
- emphasises process for achieving equalisation, with the free, active and meaningful participation of Indigenous peoples being critical - sometimes referred to as 'free, prior and informed consent';
- establishes fundamental principles to guide policy development - such as that disadvantaged groups are not discriminated against and are treated equally, including through recognising their distinct cultures; and
- requires governments, working in partnership with Indigenous peoples, to demonstrate that they are approaching these issues in a targeted manner, and are accountable to the achievement of defined goals within a defined timeframe.
This final element is known as the 'progressive realization' principle. It requires governments ' to take steps ,. to the maximum of its available resources, with a view to achieving progressively the full realization of (economic, social and cultural) rights. by all appropriate means..' (Article 2.1, ICESCR).It is required that these steps should be deliberate, concrete and targeted as clearly as possible towards meeting human rights obligations including equalisation between racial groups.
The progressive realization principle has two main strategic implications. It recognizes that the full realization of human rights may have to occur in a progressive manner over a period of time, reflecting the scarcity of resources or funds. And it allows for setting priorities among different rights at any point in time since the constraint of resources may not permit a strategy to pursue all rights simultaneously with equal vigour.
This framework provides a very helpful basis from which to address these issues. It shows the inter-connections between issues, which is of assistance when we get down to this prioritisation of need. And it allows us to compare the situations of Indigenous peoples and non-Indigenous peoples over time.
Although it is beyond the scope of the framework to set as the goal of policy the achievement of equality on the indicators in the framework, it does enable us to see how well we are progressing in closing the gaps between indigenous and non-indigenous people.
The issue that we currently face is that the framework needs to be supplemented by appropriate targets or benchmarks, which are negotiated by governments and Indigenous peoples. So for example, the report tells us what the rate of progress is on particular issues and where there is no progress. Taking this to the next level by incorporating a human rights approach means that governments then need to justify:
- why there is no advancement on some indicators - after all, the progressive realisation principle requires that there be an ongoing improvement and ongoing reduction of inequality; and
- also , in relation to where there are improvements, to explain or justify whether the rate of progress achieved is a sufficient rate of progress given the resources available and the urgency and priority of the issues.
Following on from the setting of equality targets to be measured by the Key Indicators, benchmarks should also be set so that the rate of progress can be monitored and, if progress is slow, corrective action taken. Setting benchmarks enables government and other parties to reach agreement about what rate of progress would be adequate. Such benchmarks should be:
- Specific, time bound and verifiable;
- Set with the participation of the people whose rights are affected, to agree on what is an adequate rate of progress and to prevent the target from being set too low; and
- Reassessed independently at their target date, with accountability for performance.
This is an issue that needs to be addressed at the inter-governmental level. One of the most interesting aspects of this second report is the inclusion of an appendix which sets out how each government - federal, state and territory - is going about incorporating the reporting framework into their policies and program design. I would argue that progress on this has been too slow and we are not seeing sufficient efforts from governments to place this framework at the centre of all of their activity - despite their commitments to do so.
I've already mentioned the lack of connection of SRAs to these indicators. The same can be said for the COAG trials - for which we have no formal evaluation process after four years of activity.
I actually think that this lack of an appropriate monitoring and evaluation framework at the federal level for the new arrangements is one of the most critical problems of the process. This is disappointing when you consider that the Productivity Commission's framework is designed for whole of government reporting.
That said , outcomes for the period since the new arrangements have been in place won't show up in data collections and analysis for at least another 2 to 4 years. We are unlikely to see analysis of the 2006 Census until 2007 or 2008, and analysis of the next NATSISS until at least 2008. So it won't be until 2007 that we see any data which is compiled in accordance with the commitments of COAG and reported in a holistic manner that relates to the new arrangements. So there is time to fix this problem.
There are some good examples though. In this year's budget, for example, the government announced a new 'Healthy for life' program that involves the establishment of a number of 'healthy for life' sites providing primary health care interventions to Indigenous communities. Each site will be subject to a formal evaluation process and has benchmarks set for the life of the program. These include halving incidence of low-birth weight babies within 5 years. The birth weight of babies is one of the Strategic Change Indicators within the Key Indicators.
It also remains to be seen how State and Territory governments will link their programs to the Key Indicators. The appendix to the latest report indicates that different jurisdictions are using the Key Indicators in different ways - some simply as guides or reference points, while others, such as the ACT, are reporting against them. The overall picture is very much of a 'work in progress' with greater effort needed to integrate the indicators as much as possible into programs.
So in summary, the reporting framework is a very useful tool for planning, policy development and monitoring. It contains by default, equality indicators or targets.
What needs to change are government strategies so that they are responsive to this framework.
- First they must connect into the Key Indicators.
- Second they must contain equalisation as a goal
- Third, equalisation should be set within an ambitious but reasonable time frame.
- Finally, they should be benchmarked so progress can be measured and accountability maintained throughout the strategy-life cycle.
Linking the Key Indicators to human rights based programs would release their full potential as agents of change for Indigenous peoples in Australia.
Thank you
Last updated 28 September 2005.
