Site navigation

Change font size: SmallerLargerReload

Aboriginal & Torres Strait Islander Social Justice navigation

Social Justice Report 2006

  • Back to Contents

    • Chapter 3: Addressing the fundamental flaw of the new arrangements for Indigenous affairs – the absence of principled engagement with Indigenous peoples

    Back to Report Home (TOC)

    Chapter 2 << Chapter 3 >> Chapter 4

    This is the third successive Social Justice Report to report on the implementation of the new arrangements for Indigenous affairs at the federal government level. The past two Social Justice Reports have emphasised the importance of governments ensuring the effective participation of Indigenous peoples in decision making that affects our lives. This includes the development of policy, program delivery and monitoring by governments at the national, as well as state, regional and local levels.

    The Social Justice Report 2005 expressed significant concerns about the lack of progress in ensuring processes were operating to ensure the participation of Indigenous peoples in policy, particularly at the regional and national levels. The report also provided a stern warning about the implications of failing to address this issue as an urgent priority. It stated that the ‘absence of processes for Indigenous representation at all levels of decision making contradicts and undermines the purposes of the new arrangements’.[1] The report called for principled engagement with Indigenous peoples as a fundamental tenet of federal policy making.

    This chapter does three things.

    First, it provides an update on the progress made over the past twelve months in ensuring the ‘maximum participation of Aboriginal persons and Torres Strait Islanders in the formulation and implementation of government policies that affect them’ with a particular emphasis on developments at the national and regional level. It is clear that the mechanisms for Indigenous participation in the new arrangements remain inadequate. Indeed this ongoing failure to ensure Indigenous participation in decision making is the fundamental flaw in the implementation of the new arrangements.

    Second, it looks to developments at the local level through Shared Responsibility Agreements (SRAs) to see how this program of activities is unfolding. Substantial effort has been devoted to this program of small scale interventions. This can be justified if it provides a pathway to improving existing mechanisms for engaging with Indigenous communities at the local level and identifying the crucial barriers to sustainable development within communities. It is reasonable to expect such lessons after two years of solid engagement.

    The chapter examines progress under the SRA program by engaging with those people affected most by them – namely, the Indigenous communities who have entered into SRAs. This is achieved through a series of interviews with three SRA communities and through analysing the results of a national survey of two thirds of those Indigenous communities or organisations that had entered into an SRA by the end of 2005.

    Third, the chapter looks to ways forward which address the significant concerns that are set out in the chapter. As the chapter makes clear, Government commitments exist to ensure the maximum participation of Indigenous peoples in decision-making and these commitments have been consistently re-affirmed. The concerns in this chapter reflect a problem of implementation of these commitments.

    The absence of appropriate mechanisms for the participation of Indigenous peoples in the new arrangements is a significant policy failure. It is inconsistent with our human rights obligations, existing federal legislation, and the government’s own policies.

    The immediate impact of this policy failure is to render Indigenous voices silent on new policy developments, in the legislative reform process and in the setting of basic policy parameters and the delivery of basic services to Indigenous communities. The chapter emphasises the potential danger of the new arrangements to the well being of Indigenous peoples, if the concerns raised in this report are not addressed as an urgent priority.

    Developments in ensuring the ‘maximum participation of Aboriginal persons and Torres Strait Islanders in the formulation and implementation of government policies that affect them’

    The importance of regional Indigenous participatory mechanisms in the new arrangements

    The legislation which forms the foundation for the new arrangements, the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Act 2005 (Cth), has as one of its objectives ‘to ensure maximum participation of Aboriginal persons and Torres Strait Islanders in the formulation and implementation of government policies that affect them’.[2]

    The government has continually emphasised the importance of ensuring such participation as an integral component of its arrangements for Indigenous Affairs. In June 2005, the then Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs confirmed that the government remained committed to establishing representative bodies at the regional level:

    We have always stated that, following the dissolution of ATSIC Regional Councils from July 1 this year, there will be room for genuine Indigenous representative bodies to emerge in their place.[3]

    This commitment has been constantly re-iterated by the Government since. They have stated that through regional Indigenous Coordination Centres, ‘the Australian government is committed to real engagement with Indigenous people in the areas where they live’.[4]

    The Minister for Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs has also stated that:

    We aim to make it simpler for Indigenous people to deal with government. We want to show respect by encouraging them to be active participants in solving their own problems...

    (T)he one-size-fits-all approach will not work. We need different strategies for urban, rural and remote areas. Indeed we must recognise that every individual community is different and that local solutions need to be designed with local people to suit their local circumstances.[5]

    The Government has emphasised that the new arrangements are intended to ensure that programs are ‘being implemented more flexibly in response to local Indigenous needs’ and that ‘Indigenous communities at the local and regional level... have more say in how (funding) is spent’.[6]

    In their implementation, the new arrangements are underpinned by five key principles. These include:

    2. Regional and local need

    ICCs are talking directly with Indigenous communities and groups about their priorities and needs and their longer term vision for the future. Shared responsibility Agreements (SRAs) may result from these discussions...

    The Australian government is also progressing negotiations on Regional Partnership

    Agreements (RPAs) to tailor government interventions across a region. RPAs can also provide a framework for recognising the range of regional Indigenous engagement arrangements that develop around Australia.

    5. Leadership

    Strong leadership is required to make the arrangements work, both within government and from Indigenous people.

    The regional engagement arrangements that Indigenous people establish will provide leadership and be accountable to the people and communities they represent.

    Where Indigenous leadership capacity and organisational governance need to be strengthened, the Australian government can provide support.[7]

    What is clear from this is that the Government has acknowledged that mechanisms for Indigenous participation at the regional level are essential if the whole of government model it is seeking to implement is to work.

    Regional Indigenous participatory mechanisms have an essential role in the new arrangements as the link in the chain that connects policy making from the top to service delivery that is relevant and appropriate at the grass roots. It is essential to identify local need and to facilitate regional planning and coordination.

    In materials explaining the operation of the new service delivery arrangements, the Government explains the role and importance of regional engagement arrangements and agreement-making processes to facilitate partnerships between Indigenous peoples and governments. Regional Partnership Agreements are seen as a key mechanism to achieve this. The Government’s approach is described as follows:

    Through ICCs, the Australian government has been consulting with Indigenous communities and state/territory governments about regional solutions to regional needs.

    Regional Partnership Agreements (RPAs) are negotiated to coordinate government services and deliver initiatives across several communities in a region. They are a means of eliminating overlaps or gaps, and promoting collaborative effort to meet identified regional needs and priorities. They may also involve industry and non-government organisations.

    RPAs also seek to build communities’ capacity to control their own affairs, negotiate with government, and have a real say in their region’s future.

    RPAs may include shared responsibility Agreements (SRAs) with local communities or groups that support the objectives of the RPA.[8]

    RPAs are a tool to facilitate and recognise regional Indigenous engagement arrangements. As the Government explains:

    Regional Indigenous engagement arrangements are evolving in a number of regions to help Indigenous people talk to government and participate in program and service delivery. These engagement arrangements are a mechanism for making and implementing agreements between government and Indigenous people based on the principles of partnership, shared responsibility and self-reliance.

    The Australian government does not want to impose structures but will support and work with arrangements that are designed locally or regionally and accepted by Indigenous people as their way to engage with government.

    The government has supported consultation with Indigenous people about the types of engagement arrangements they want. Communities need time to think through these issues, and views differ widely across regions on the most appropriate models.

    In Western Australia and New South Wales, the Australian and state governments are already supporting new engagement arrangements in the Warburton and Murdi Paaki regions respectively.

    Bilateral agreements with state and territory governments are also pointing to a variety of approaches to regional engagement. These approaches include regional authorities in the Northern Territory and ‘negotiation tables’ in Queensland.

    Regional Partnership Agreements are a primary mechanism for government to provide funding for regional Indigenous engagement arrangements. More regional Indigenous engagement agreements are likely to be finalised as indigenous groups negotiate with the Australian and other governments on their funding. [9]

    Regionally based Indigenous Coordination Centres (ICCs) provide the interface with Indigenous communities for the establishment of regional indigenous engagement arrangements and the finalisation of RPAs. To assist in this process the Government has created four panels of experts to support ICCs, including for the specific task of ‘developing regional engagement arrangements’.[10]

    Similarly, a ‘multiuse list of community facilitators/coordinators’ has also been created to compliment the more specialised and technical services of the Panels of Experts. Members of the Multiuse List are intended to create links between communities and governments, coordinate and develop service delivery, support communities and specific groups, such as women and youth, in identifying their priorities, in negotiating agreements with government, and in developing new regional engagement arrangements.[11]

    Progress in supporting Indigenous engagement at the regional level

    Last year’s Social Justice Report provided an extensive overview of developments towards the establishment of regional Indigenous representative bodies.

    The report noted the considerable progress that had been made in negotiating regional representative arrangements and structures. It reported that consultations had been conducted across many regions to identify replacement representative structures during the year, and that OIPC had provided funds through the ICCs for Indigenous peoples to convene local and regional meetings to discuss options for new regional representative arrangements.[12]

    An overview of progress on a state-by-state basis showed that there were promising developments in determining culturally appropriate regional representative models, although there were gaps and problems with some of the models.[13] I emphasised the need to finalise and operationalise representative organisations where negotiations were largely complete, and to make greater progress in other areas where models had not yet been finalised.

    Overall, I found the situation to be of some concern:

    The consequence of the current status of these models is that there are few mechanisms for Indigenous participation at the regional level...[14]

    Addressing the absence of regional representative structures is an urgent priority for the 2005-06 financial year. It would be wholly unacceptable for regional structures to not exist and not be operational in all ICC regions by the end of this period.[15]

    The report recommended that the Australian government, in partnership with state and territory governments, prioritise, with Indigenous peoples, the negotiation of regional representative arrangements and that Representative bodies should be finalised and operational by 30 June 2006 in all Indigenous Coordination Centre regions.[16]

    At that time, the Government had finalised one RPA that recognised the Ngaanyatjarra Council as the representative body for 12 communities spread across the Ngaanyatjarra lands in Western Australia.

    It had also finalised a Shared Responsibility Agreement which recognised the Murdi Paaki Regional Assembly as the peak regional Indigenous body in the Murdi Paaki region of far north-west New South Wales. It is understood that the Murdi Paaki Regional Assembly is now close to signing a RPA to formalise strategic planning arrangements proposed through community planning processes undertaken as part of the SRA.

    In brief, it is worth recalling developments relating to the creation of regional representative structures as they stood 12 months ago:

    As the Social Justice Report 2005 noted, ‘common to all the existing proposals (for regional structures) is that the federal government has not as yet outlined in concrete terms how they will support them’.[18] In particular, there was no clarity as to how regional bodies would be funded and the type and level of administrative support they would be provided. The report noted that Regional Partnership Agreements provided an appropriate model for developing regional structures.

    Throughout the past twelve months, the government has continued to state that it is committed to establishing regional representative structures. In correspondence with my Office in December 2006, the Office of Indigenous Policy Coordination stated that RPAs are the primary mechanism for formally engaging with Indigenous peoples and communities at a regional level, and that they:

    ... are a way of harnessing the potential of communities in a region through genuine partnerships involving many sectors, backed by a serious commitment of resources.[19]

    As discussed further below, commitments to ensure Indigenous participation and engagement are also contained in each bilateral agreement between the Australian government and the states and territories.

    The Government also released guidelines indicating the parameters of what support they would provide for regional structures. These guidelines were for ‘Regional Indigenous Engagement Arrangements’ (RIEA) and were intended to:

    ... [P]rogress RIEA proposals that are consistent with the Australian Government’s principles of partnership, shared responsibility and self-reliance, and to provide feedback to communities on proposals that are not consistent with the Australian Government’s objectives.[20]

    A notable feature of these guidelines is that they do not use the phrase ‘representative structures’. This language of representation had been acceptable during the first year of the new arrangements. Importantly, the various proposals submitted to the government before 30 June 2005 were for replacement representative structures.

    The RIEA guidelines therefore elaborate the shift by the Government from supporting ‘representation’ to supporting ‘engagement arrangements’. The parameters for Australian Government funding set out in the guidelines are as follows:

    A second key feature of the guidelines is that they substantially reduce the scope of what the federal government would consider supporting and funding. Regional Indigenous Engagement Arrangements will only get funding support for a year, after which time any further support must be negotiated through a Regional Partnership Agreement. Whilst this does not necessarily preclude organisations with a degree of permanency, it shows that engagement arrangements are to be contingent on RPAs.

    The shift in focus that the guidelines present is problematic in that various proposals were prepared prior to these guidelines being made public and available. Indeed, the guidelines were in all likelihood developed as a response to concerns by the government about the content of the proposals developed prior to 30 June 2005.

    This means that proposals submitted by Indigenous communities would be assessed against guidelines that the proponents were unaware of and which would require a much narrower and restricted proposal for support to be forthcoming.

    The document outlining the guidelines made clear that the guidelines outlined would be utilised ‘to progress RIEA proposals’ such as the 18 that had been received at the time. This suggests that the Government would engage with the proponents of regional models to consider their proposals in light of the government guidelines.

    Over the past eighteen months and since the adoption of these guidelines, the Government has finalised two RPAs – in Port Hedland and the East Kimberly (both signed in November 2006).

    Neither of these agreements relate to supporting Regional Indigenous Engagement Arrangements. Instead, they are the result of negotiations within two trial sites under a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) between the Government and the Minerals Council of Australia.

    The MoU with the Minerals Council is about building partnerships between the government, mining sector and Indigenous communities. The MoU negotiation process involved local Indigenous leaders through the Indigenous Leaders Dialogue - a forum through which local Indigenous leaders advise the MCA about Indigenous aspirations and anticipated outcomes from the MoU.

    Case studies of these RPAs are included in the Native Title Report 2006. The Report notes that a concern during the negotiation of the RPAs was the lack of sufficient Indigenous engagement. In relation to the East Kimberly RPA, the Native Title Report 2006 states that:

    From the outset, parties to the RPA saw it as an initiative of the Australian Government. There is evidence that the negotiation processes were run according to the Government’s own agenda and plans were hastily developed in a rush to meet fixed deadlines leaving other parties feeling pressured to follow for fear of being left behind... The level of community engagement (on the RPA) is regarded as greatly inadequate.

    As a result of the lack of engagement with Indigenous people, there is a critical lack of understanding within the community about the RPA, and what it aims to deliver. For example, there was reported confusion between the RPA and other changes to regional governance arrangements including changes to the Community Development Employment Project. This kind of confusion has the potential to skew commitment and expectations of the RPA, and may lead to dissatisfaction with outcomes. In addition, as long as communities are uncertain about the nature of the RPA, they will be unable to take advantage of the opportunities it creates.[22]

    Aside from these RPAs emanating from the MoU with the Minerals Council, no other RPAs have progressed in the past eighteen months.

    In researching this report, my Office sought to contact the proponents of proposed regional arrangements that had been identified by the Minister for Indigenous Affairs as ‘finalised’ in June 2005. My purpose was to identify what had transpired over the past 12-18 months and whether the proposals as submitted had been considered and what advice had been provided back to the proponents of these bodies in order to advance them (consistent with the commitment given by the government when it announced its guidelines for RIEAs). [23]

    Those proposals that had been identified as ‘finalised’ related to the following ICC regions:

    In Hansard in federal Parliament in May 2006 the Government stated that two arrangements had been established and were receiving funding support from the Australian Government and sixteen other reports from Indigenous groups had been received by the Australian Government for consideration.[25]

    Information on progress was sought initially from the relevant ICCs and the Office of Indigenous Policy Coordination. For some of the proposed regional structures, the ICCs advised that they had no contact information for the proponents of the models and that there had been no activity to advance discussions within the region over the past year.

    In a regular request for information to the OIPC that I make for each Social Justice Report I also specifically requested a region by region update on progress in advancing RIEAs and in consideration of proposals that had been submitted to OIPC through the ICCs. The OIPC provided no response to this question.[26]

    Discussions with Indigenous community members who had been involved in proposing structures for these regions also revealed that little progress had occurred in progressing RIEAs. Part of the difficulty in this was the fact that most of the models had been presented by, or were facilitated by, the relevant ATSIC Regional Council prior to their abolition. Accordingly, there is now no institutional structure in place to progress the proposals made.

    Various community members noted that the process of negotiating an RIEA had not progressed due to a lack of communication from the OIPC and ICC, with the proponents not hearing from the local ICC regarding their proposal,[27] no financial support from any level of government to facilitate progressing the proposal, lack of communication on the proposal between the state or territory government and the federal government, and/ or a lack of support for the proposal by the state or territory government.[28]

    The Government explains the current absence of consultative mechanisms as follows:

    Mr Yates - There was quite a lot of work done in the follow-up to the abolition of the ATSIC regional councils, typically in conjunction with state or territory governments where they were reviewing representative arrangements or machinery for engagement with government. So there has been quite a lot of work done over the last couple of years, but they have not all translated into replacement arrangements. As far as possible we were looking to try and support arrangements which both levels of government would be backing rather than having multiple layers. Our focus in terms of the future has been on, at the regional level, the engagement that we are having there where that translates into regional partnership agreements. We are quite ready and willing to work with the other parties and provide resources to support the effectiveness of Indigenous groups engaging with government to enable those regional partnership agreements to work well.[29]

    There is an important change in approach here, from an emphasis on regional structures, to regional processes and agreements, particularly RPAs.

    Given the advanced state of discussions a year ago in a number of regions, it is quite remarkable that progress towards recognising regional representative structures has stalled, if not dissipated.

    Even more remarkably, the OIPC has sought to suggest that this lack of progress is a result in a shift in the thinking and preferences of Indigenous people themselves!

    In Senate Estimates they stated:

    ... what we [FaCSIA] have found is that some of the early thinking in a number of regions, which was to re-establish something very similar to an ATSIC regional council, has dissipated. They [Indigenous peoples] have realised that that is not workable or meaningful for them and they have moved on. So we are in a situation where we are having to work more case by case in different regions, and it is taking a while, but the timetable is very much in the hands of Indigenous people, as is the shape of any engagement arrangements that that results in.[30]

    This proposition needs to be tested further. It is not consistent with the findings of discussions conducted by my Office and it is not consistent with the apparent lack of activity by OIPC and ICC to progress this important issue.

    As indicated above, immediately following the demise of the ATSIC Regional Councils and over the course of the first year of the new arrangements, the government expressed a clear intention to assist Indigenous peoples to establish replacement bodies for regional participation. After an initial level of activity by OIPC to this end, this undertaking was quietly dropped and replaced with a commitment to RIEAs.

    It now seems that the federal government would prefer to avoid anything resembling the ATSIC Regional Council model. I have serious doubts that this fully represents the will of Indigenous peoples in the regions, or that they have ‘moved on’ in their thinking.

    Given the unqualified nature of the government’s initial undertakings, a more thorough explanation of what is being done to replace the ATSIC Regional Councils with appropriate regional representative organisations is called for.

    While it is desirable not to foist a standard model on different regions, and this is one of the reasons given for the slowness in getting regional engagement arrangements in place or supported,[31] I remain concerned that the vacuum in Indigenous regional participation is creating problems.

    It is difficult for Indigenous communities to deal with the volume of changes, agencies and requirements under the new arrangements and the increasing entanglements of red tape.[32] There is a need to support authentic and credible structures and processes for Indigenous communities that allow them to engage with governments, be consulted, and where appropriate, provide informed consent.

    In my view the government has adopted a cynical and disingenuous approach in which the apparatus of the new arrangements play no active role in engaging with Indigenous peoples on a systemic basis to ensure that mechanisms for Indigenous participation can become a reality.

    The Government has clearly stated that one of the priority areas for their Expert Panels and ‘Multiuse list of community facilitators/coordinators’ is to assist in the development of regional engagement arrangements. This demonstrates that they are fully aware that such arrangements will only become a reality if intensive support is provided to Indigenous communities to develop models that are suitable to their local needs.

    It is fanciful to expect that RIEAs will emerge solely through the efforts of Indigenous communities that are under-resourced and that in most instances do not have the necessary infrastructure to conduct the wide-ranging consultation and negotiation required to bring a regional engagement structure into existence.

    It is also convenient for Government to leave this issue solely up to Indigenous peoples to progress. I would suggest that this is done in full knowledge that the outcome of this approach will be an absence of regional engagement arrangements.

    There is a clear need for special assistance to ensure that Indigenous peoples are able to, in the words of the object of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Act 2005, ensure the ‘maximum participation of Aboriginal persons and Torres Strait Islanders in the formulation and implementation of government policies that affect them’.

    Options for addressing this significant failure of the new arrangements are discussed in detail in the final section of this chapter.

    As noted in chapter 2 of this report, a related concern is that each regional Indigenous Coordination Centre is now developing its own Regional Action Plan which identifies the key issues that the ICC will focus on in a twelve month period.

    The plans will cover work completed through a variety of mechanisms including RPAs and SRAs, strategic intervention arrangements and community in crisis interventions. The plans are to be endorsed by federal government state manager groups and will highlight the most significant community and government work which the ICC is involved as well as link into national priorities.[33]

    It is a concern that ICCs are developing such action plans in the absence of systematic engagement with Indigenous communities at a regional level and in the absence of Regional Indigenous Engagement Arrangements in nearly all ICC regions. Ensuring such engagement with Indigenous communities should be a fundamental pre-requisite to determining service delivery priorities and in the identification of need for each ICC region.

    As I have travelled around the country I have discussed this situation with Government staff in ICCs and OIPC state offices. These staff, particularly at the field operative level, are observing the frustration, disengagement and bewilderment of Indigenous peoples. Many of these staff have had long term relationships with indigenous communities and peoples and they are experiencing the pressures of top down impositions that are not likely to see any real and sustainable outcomes for indigenous people. They also feel disempowered themselves, and that the culture within the OIPC is one that does not value their views and concerns. Many have expressed an unwillingness to raise their concerns for fear of reprisals.

    Government would benefit from conducting a confidential survey of all staff in ICCs to gauge their views on the current directions in implementing the new arrangements and to raise suggestions on the way forward to achieve sustainable outcomes.

    Indigenous participation in decision making at the national level

    Last year’s Social Justice Report provided a detail overview of the issues relating to Indigenous engagement at the national level.[34] These include:

    In the past twelve months, there have been limited changes at the national level to the situation as described in the Social Justice Report 2005. The government has continued to utilise the National Indigenous Council (NIC) as the primary source of advice on Indigenous policy[35] and has not sought to engage more broadly with Indigenous communities on matters of policy development that affect our lives.

    The result of this has been a noticeably low level of participation of Indigenous peoples in inquiry processes (such as parliamentary committees) on matters of crucial importance to Indigenous peoples and a new ‘unilateralism’ in policy development.

    There are two principle concerns that I have regarding developments at the national level over the past 12- 18 months.

    Last year’s Social Justice Report expressed concern at the existence of multiple processes to reform Indigenous policy that were taking place concurrently and the limited ability for Indigenous people and communities to engage in these processes. I noted my concern that:

    ... the cumulative impact of the parallel reforms currently taking place is overwhelming some communities and individuals.

    This renders it very difficult for Indigenous peoples to participate meaningfully in policy development, program design and service delivery. This is particularly so in the absence of representative structures to coordinate and focus the input of communities, particularly in relation to legislative reform and inquiry processes.

    The intention of the reforms is plainly to improve engagement and service delivery with Indigenous peoples... The rapid rate of the reforms and the accompanying impact it is having on communities and individuals needs to be acknowledged by governments.[36]

    This situation has continued over the past year.

    For example, communities have had to deal with the following ongoing reform processes that have been occurring simultaneously at the national level:

    At the same time, consultations have been conducted relating to:

    Legislation has also been introduced to the federal Parliament that impacts on Indigenous communities relating to:

    Parliamentary inquiries have also been conducted into:

    These activities are just some of the reforms that have occurred at the national level. They do not include significant reforms at the state and territory level – such as to governance arrangements and local councils in Queensland and the Northern Territory; the operation of the state based land council system, care and protection and adoption systems in NSW; protections through a Bill of Rights in the A.C.T, Victoria, Tasmania and Western Australia; and inquiries into family violence and child sexual abuse in NSW and the NT, among other things.

    The consultation processes and reforms at the federal level have also been difficult for Indigenous peoples to participate in due to the short timeframes within which consultation for some of the reforms have taken place. The adequacy of consultation processes for CDEP and related employment changes, for example, were discussed in Chapter 2 of this report.

    An issue of major concern has been the shortness of time for parliamentary inquiries into issues of relevance to the situation of Indigenous peoples and particularly for draft legislation. This has been particularly noticeable in inquiries before the Australian Senate where public consultation on proposed legislation has consistently been severely curtailed.

    For example:

    ‘The Committee considers the time made available for this inquiry to be totally inadequate. The Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act is one of the most fundamentally important social justice reforms enacted in Australia and these are the most extensive and far reaching amendments that have been proposed to the Act. There was insufficient time for many groups to prepare submissions and a single hearing was complicated by the necessity to include a number of teleconferences within the hearing. Additionally, time constraints prevented the Committee hearing from a number of witnesses’.[38]

    The lack of emphasis given to ensuring that Indigenous peoples are able to participate in decision making processes that affect us is of serious concern.

    As I note elsewhere in this report, the lack of engagement generally with Indigenous peoples ensures that the system of government, of policy making and service delivery, is a passive system that deliberately prevents the active engagement of Indigenous peoples. This contradicts the central policy aims of the new arrangements, which includes commitments to partnerships, shared responsibility and mutual obligation.

    It is paradoxical for the Government to criticise Indigenous people for being passive victims and stuck in a welfare mentality yet to continually reinforce a policy development framework that is passive and devoid of opportunity for active engagement by Indigenous peoples.

    I find it particularly disturbing that there is a lack of acknowledgement of the importance of Indigenous engagement and participation in policy making. I am concerned that there is emerging a culture within the federal public service, led by the Office of Indigenous Policy, which does not place sufficient value upon such engagement.

    This has been particularly notable in debates about reforms to land rights in the Northern Territory, particularly those relating to changes to land tenure in townships. The government has stated before the Senate Committee inquiring into the amendments to the land rights legislation that it is not under an obligation to consult with Indigenous peoples on the proposed changes, and that that role lay instead with the land councils in the Northern Territory.[39]

    In subsequent discussions where I have expressed concern about the lack of community consultation on the issue of town leasing, the OIPC have also noted that they are not obliged under the legislation to consult with the community, just with a section of it, that is traditional owners, which the government has stated could mean just one person in some instances.[40]

    As a matter of practicality, processes for engaging with stakeholders about proposed reforms are integrally linked to achieving successful implementation at the community level. It is a mistake to believe that reforms that are developed in a vacuum will be embraced by communities. It is far more likely that such reforms will be perceived as disempowering and paternalistic. As a consequence, governments will face greater difficulties in realising their intended goals. This will particularly be so if those goals are not shared by Indigenous communities.

    The absence of a national representative body exacerbates this situation.

    It is my impression, from discussions with officials in different departments and agencies and from observing current practices, that government departments are struggling about how to consult and with who.

    As reported in the past two Social Justice Reports, Indigenous peoples have been giving attention to the necessary components of a replacement national body for the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission (ATSIC).

    The National Indigenous Leaders Conference was convened in Adelaide in June 2004 and set out principles that must be met for any national body to be credible.[41] A smaller steering committee of participants in that process have met since that initial meeting, including at a meeting in Melbourne in 2006, to advance their proposal.

    To date, there has been limited information made publicly available about this process or its outcomes. This is unfortunate given the urgent and compelling need for a national representative body to be in place.

    The Social Justice Report 2004 set out a number of options for ensuring the effective participation of Indigenous peoples in decision making at the national level. These included the establishment of a national congress of Indigenous representative organisations, annual meetings of Indigenous service delivery organisations, and the establishment of a national Indigenous non-government organisation.[42]

    My current assessment of these options is as follows:

    I would see enormous value in bringing together these organisations to share common experiences and consider mechanisms for improved coordination and consideration of issues in a whole of government matter. The absence of such a coordinated approach from Indigenous organisations (who are clearly not equipped or resourced to operate in this way) creates a mismatch between the Government’s new whole of government approach and the ability of Indigenous peoples to participate in it.

    A National Forum of Service Providers and peak bodies would be useful as an ongoing mechanism, but ultimately would not substitute the need for a representative body to ensure effective engagement with Indigenous communities.

    This is, in my view, achievable. Lessons regarding funding arrangements and structure can be learnt from similar organisations internationally but also from domestic organisations in other sectors – such as the Federation of Ethnic Community Councils of Australia and the Australian Council for Overseas Aid.

    The current lack of effective participation of Indigenous peoples at the national level is a matter of major concern. If the current approach is to continue unabated, we risk government policy processes entrenching existing problems of lack of engagement. This will result in systemic problems in Indigenous policy and service delivery.

    Due to my ongoing concerns about this issue, I have identified the following as a follow up action for my Office over the coming year.

    Follow Up Action by Social Justice Commissioner

    The Social Justice Commissioner will work with Indigenous organisations and communities to identify sustainable options for establishing a national Indigenous representative body.

    The Commissioner will conduct research and consultations with non-government organisations domestically and internationally to establish existing models for representative structures that might be able to be adapted to the cultural situation of Indigenous Australians, as well as methods for expediting the establishment of such a body given the urgent and compelling need for such a representative body.

    Indigenous participation in determining priorities for inter-governmental cooperation

    Concurrent to these developments, the government has continued to bed down the new arrangements and to confirm changes in policy through processes that do not include Indigenous participation at the outset. This has primarily occurred through a new focus on ‘intensive interventions’ and through an emphasis on setting priorities and agreed areas for action through bilateral agreements with the states and territories.

    Generally speaking, Indigenous engagement is limited to the implementation of the priorities once they have already been agreed between governments. Chapter 2 of this report discussed the federal government’s movement towards a bilateral interventionist model of ‘strategic interventions’ or ‘intensive interventions’ in some communities designated as being ‘in crisis’.

    As noted in chapter 2, the interventionist model puts the strategic decision-making clearly in the hands of government – the Indigenous community only becomes involved after the basic decision to intervene has been made and respective levels of commitment have been agreed between different governments.

    ‘Strategic intervention’ in this context in fact means ‘restricted Indigenous participation’ at a governmental and priority-setting level. Priorities are determined by outsiders (governments), and only then are the insiders (the community) invited to participate in the detailed planning and implementation. This does not appear to provide a sound basis for ‘ownership’ of initiatives undertaken as part of such strategic interventions.

    This approach is more broadly applied through the negotiation of bilateral agreements on Indigenous affairs between the federal government and the states and territories.

    In general terms, the bilateral agreements commit each government to work in partnership and in accordance with principles as agreed through the Council of Australian Governments (COAG). They also include schedules of priority actions which are agreed solely by governments without Indigenous participation.

    In contrast to this lack of engagement prior to the finalisation of the bilateral agreements, each agreement then commits the Australian government and the relevant state or territory government to ensure Indigenous participation in the implementation of the agreement. For example:

    The NSW Government’s Operational Guidelines for SRAs require NSW government agencies to satisfy themselves that there has been a proper consultative process with Indigenous peoples in developing an SRA.[46]

    It is unclear how any engagement arrangements agreed at the state level, such as the processes currently underway in South Australia and Western Australia, will link to the federal level. It can be expected, however, that there will be a connection due to the commitments made in the bilateral agreements. It remains to be seen whether such cooperation is forthcoming from the federal government once the models freely chosen by Indigenous peoples have been revealed – particularly if these models extend beyond the acceptable parameters for the federal government as laid down in their Guidelines for Regional Indigenous Engagement Arrangements.

    It remains unfortunate that priorities have been identified through the bilateral agreements without Indigenous participation and engagement and that there continues to be a lack of any mechanism to facilitate Indigenous participation as the agreed actions for inter-governmental cooperation are undertaken..

    Engagement with Indigenous peoples at the local level – Indigenous perspectives on Shared Responsibility Agreements

    Over the first two years of the new arrangements, there has been considerable effort devoted to developing Shared Responsibility Agreements (SRAs) with Indigenous communities and organisations. This stands in marked contrast to the lack of activity in ensuring the existence of regional mechanisms for Indigenous participation and engagement.

    This section of the report considers what lessons can be learnt from this local level engagement, particularly in light of the concerns at the inappropriate mechanisms and processes for engagement that currently exist at the regional, state and national levels.

    Why focus on SRAs?

    Considerable emphasis has been placed on SRAs by the Office of Indigenous Policy Coordination since the inception of the new arrangements.

    They have been described as forming one of the beacons of innovation that they hope will be the hallmark of the new arrangements. SRAs have been identified as having the potential to open up communities to new streamlined forms of service delivery that ‘cut red tape’ and address the longstanding problems of accessibility of mainstream programs, by ‘harnessing the mainstream’. Officers responsible for negotiating SRAs within regional ICCs are optimistically named ‘solution brokers’ in accordance with these expectations.

    SRAs have also been prominent due to the policy emphasis within them on mutual obligation: they have been promoted as one of the key approaches for addressing passivity in communities by instilling a culture of reciprocity, through mutual obligation for the delivery of services over and above basic citizenship entitlements.

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

    In both practical terms and also the ‘publicity’ of the new arrangements, SRAs have occupied an importance that far outweighs the percentage of expenditure that they represent.

    This is the primary reason why there should continue to be detailed attention and analysis devoted to the effectiveness of this program.

    SRAs have emerged out of the COAG trial model and were quickly applied more broadly prior to that model being evaluated and its particular challenges identified, such as the high input costs and intensive effort required for engagement prior to the delivery of services hitting the ground in communities.

    The previous two Social Justice Reports have highlighted the significant challenges for SRAs to meet the expectations placed upon them by the government – both legal, in ensuring compliance with human rights and specifically the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (Cth), and practical, in ensuring sound engagement with Indigenous communities to ensure that the process can contribute to the long term needs of those communities rather than distracting attention and effort away from the urgent needs of communities.

    As the previous chapter of this report notes, the initial focus on SRAs has produced only modest outcomes in relation to improving mainstream accessibility. This has been hampered by limited flexibility at the regional level, with all SRAs originally having to be sent back to Canberra for approval prior to proceeding, no matter what level of expenditure was involved.

    Similarly, the definitions of and approaches to SRAs have continuously changed, with current references to ‘single issue’ SRAs, comprehensive SRAs, holistic SRAs and with the additional blurring of distinctions between SRAs and Regional Partnership Agreements. This lack of clarity and singular focus is consistent with the instability that characterises the new arrangements more than two years into their implementation (and as discussed in detail in the previous chapter).

    There has also been a tendency for particular SRAs to blur the boundaries of what is acceptable in terms of service provision for basic entitlements to communities. The application of mutual obligation principles within agreements has also been problematic on occasion, and has moved away from the initial intention of supporting communities to become active participants to being perceived as providing a punitive approach to service delivery.

    The Social Justice Report 2005 gave extensive consideration to the Shared Responsibility Agreement (SRA) making process. It included human rights guidelines for the process of making SRAs as well as guidelines to guide the content of SRAs.[51]

    The report also identified a number of ‘follow up actions’ that my Office would undertake over the subsequent period in relation to SRAs. These included that my Office would monitor the SRA process, including by:

    I have continued to monitor SRAs over the past year through a three stage process.

    First, the Office of Indigenous Policy Coordination has forwarded copies of all SRAs to my Office. This arrangement will no longer be necessary as all SRAs are now published online on the OIPC website at: http://www.indigenous.gov.au/sra.html.

    Second, a national survey was conducted with Indigenous communities and organisations who had entered into an SRA. My office received many responses to the survey, and Indigenous people from numerous communities also contacted staff in my office to discuss their SRA in more detail.

    Third, I sought first hand information from Indigenous organisations and communities by means of interview based case studies. My staff visited some communities and organisations from which we had received responses through the survey, and conducted interviews in order to enhance the feedback already obtained from the surveys. These interviews provide a richer qualitative sampling of community perspectives on SRAs.

    So what then have been the outcomes of SRAs to date for Indigenous peoples, as defined by Indigenous peoples?

    This section of the report provides the outcomes of the national survey of communities who have entered into SRAs as well as of specific case studies which provide further specific information about the challenges faced during the negotiation process.

    Through both of these processes the purpose was to find out directly from Indigenous peoples about their experiences and identify whether they were satisfied with the process. Some of the questions I was interested in asking through the survey and case studies include:

    The outcomes of the national survey are discussed first, followed by the case studies. This section of the report then ends by drawing together the implications from these to guide the SRA process into the future.

    Findings of the national survey of Indigenous communities that have entered into Shared Responsibility Agreements

    A national survey of Indigenous groupings that had entered into a SRA was conducted between 4 September 2006 and 15 November 2006. The survey results reflect the perceptions and understanding of the SRA process by those Indigenous communities, organisations, families and individuals who had entered into an agreement.

    I invited all communities who had entered into an SRA before 31 December 2005 to complete a survey about the process involved in developing and implementing their SRA. The cut off date was chosen to ensure that there had been sufficient time for the SRA to come into effect and for its objectives to be realised.

    The survey consisted of 27 questions, with a combination of standard response questions and open questions to gain contextual qualitative information. All of the questions gave respondents the opportunity to add their own information.

    The survey focused on the content of the SRA, the negotiation process and the community’s views on the SRA process. The full survey questionnaire is reproduced as Appendix 3 of this report.

    The survey was undertaken on a voluntary basis. Participants were informed that their responses were to be kept confidential and all responses would be sufficiently de-identified to preserve their privacy, and in turn enable them to offer frank feedback on the SRA process.

    To increase accessibility for communities and organisations, the survey was posted on the HREOC website. Each community representative was able to complete and submit the entire survey online. I sent a letter to the communities before the survey was posted, explaining why I was interested in conducting the survey and encouraging communities to participate. Paper copies were also available on request and my staff also assisted some respondents to complete the survey over the phone.

    The survey sample includes SRAs signed before 31 December 2005. For this period there were 108 SRAs finalised, involving 124 communities.

    In addition to communities that had entered into a SRA prior to 31 December 2005, the Survey results include data relating to a further four SRAs in four communities who had entered into SRAs in early 2006. These communities had been referred to the online Survey forms by other communities that had been invited to submit results.

    At the close of the survey, responses had been received relating to 67 SRAs finalised prior to 31 December 2005, and 71 SRAs in total.[53]

    Based on 67 SRAs, out of a possible 108 SRAs prior to 31 December 2005, the survey had a 62% response rate. This is considered a very good response rate, especially given that some of the SRAs were for relatively small projects and the survey required at least an hour to complete.

    In disseminating the survey there was two interesting administrative issues faced:

    The greatest numbers of survey respondents were from Western Australia with 21 responses (32%) and the Northern Territory with 15 responses (24 %). Respectively, 10 (16%) were from Queensland, 8 (13%) South Australia, 6 (10%) NSW, 3 (5%) Tasmania, and no responses from Victoria. The high response rates for Western Australia were not surprising given the large number of SRAs in operation during the survey period.

    To understand what type of communities or community organisations have been utilising SRAs, the survey asked respondents to describe their organisation. Graph 1 below shows that 29% of the respondents described their organisation as an Aboriginal/ Torres Strait Islander corporation, and 13% as a Community Council. A large number of organisations (31%) fell into the ‘other category’. This included a range of organisations including schools, Aboriginal housing services, charitable trusts, a police unit or other organisations which fell into a number of different categories.

    While the survey did not specifically ask whether the organisation responding was Indigenous community controlled, 7 schools and 1 police unit completed the survey in relation to the SRA they had negotiated. In relation to the SRA with the police unit, further discussions with an Indigenous organisation in that community which had a specific role in the SRA revealed that they had had no involvement in its development.

    Graph 1: Description of the organisation entering into the SRA

    The survey asked respondents to identify what the SRA is about, selecting from a list of identified categories. The categories were:

    Respondents were able to select as many of the subject areas that they felt applied to their SRA.

    As shown below in Graph 2, 37% of respondents identified a single category, while the remainder reported that their SRA fell into a number of different categories. There were no clear patterns arising from how the communities described their SRAs, which in itself may reveal something about community perceptions of the SRAs. This may suggest that many communities perceive the aims of the SRA as much broader than a single issue.
    Graph 2: What is the SRA about? Number of areas identified by respondents

    Of those 37% of respondents that were able to categorise their SRA into a single subject area, Graph 3 shows the spread of SRA subject areas.

    Graph 3 - What is the SRA about? Single subject are descriptions

    As shown in Graph 2, a large number of communities listed more than category to describe their SRA. Given the unique combinations nominated by respondents no clear groupings arise but a further breakdown is provided in Table 1 below. Table 1 shows how many communities nominated each category. The most reported category was ‘other’ (24 respondents), followed by capacity building and cultural activities (18 respondents).

    Table 1: What is the SRA about?


    Category
    Frequency
    Cultural revitalisation
    18
    Capacity building
    18
    Sport and recreation
    17
    Health and nutrition
    16
    Community revitalisation
    12
    Family wellbeing
    10
    Leadership
    10
    Law and order
    5
    Municipal services
    6
    Economic development
    8
    Other
    24

    As SRAs impose obligations on both parties entering into the agreement, respondents were asked to describe the respective obligations of the federal government, state governments and community.

    In relation to the federal government, Graph 4 shows that 35% of communities report that the federal government contributed money to either fund a salary or a specific project. The next most common obligation (19%) was a combination of money, resources such as infrastructure, equipment, staff or consultants and any other form of support.

    The range of different federal obligations reported by communities suggests that at least in principle, the federal government is committing to a greater range of support mechanisms. This result appears to suggest that through these SRAs the government is moving away from purely providing funding, to greater involvement in the actual implementation of a program. This may be through monitoring and evaluation, provision of resources and infrastructure, as well as training and participation in steering or other committees.

    Graph 4: Commonwealth government obligations under the SRA

    Given that SRAs are a federal government initiative it is not surprising, that almost half (42%) of respondents reported no state government involvement or obligations in the agreement. Graph 5 illustrates the various obligations of state governments under the SRAs, according to the survey responses.

    Graph 5: State government obligations under the SRA

    The absence of state government participation in many SRAs may reflect the simple, single issue nature of the SRAs that have been negotiated to date.[54] As the process becomes more sophisticated and ‘comprehensive SRAs’ begin to emerge, it is anticipated that the level of state government involvement will increase.

    Some communities reported positive interactions with state governments and constructive use of state government obligations in SRAs. For instance, one community used the SRA process as an opportunity to develop Memorandums of Understanding (MoUs) with state government partner agencies to improve service delivery and coordination. One respondent also reported that the state government made the major contribution, with the federal government taking a less active role, namely, only participating in steering committees. This may be entirely appropriate, depending on the individual needs of each community and each SRA.

    The very nature of SRAs bestows obligations on communities in return for the benefit negotiated with government. As shown in Graph 6 below, the respondents reported a wide range of obligations.

    74% of communities reported that they were required to fulfil two or more different obligations. The most commonly reported obligation was to provide labour and other support, which can include either one or a combination of the other obligations. Other obligations set out in the survey were, to be active participants in the community, to provide maintenance and security, to organise sporting and recreational activities or to undertake training.

    Graph 6: Community obligations under the SRA

    A large number of communities listed more than one obligation. This is represented in Graph 6 as ‘other support’. A further breakdown provided in Table 2 below shows how many communities nominated each category. The most reported community obligation was to provide labour (31 respondents), closely followed by providing financial or project management (29 respondents).

    Table 2: Community Obligations


    Community Obligation
    Frequency
    Provide labour
    31
    Provide financial or project management
    29
    To be active participants in the community
    20
    To provide maintenance and security
    19
    Other
    18
    To provide resources
    17
    To undertake training
    16
    To organise sporting or recreational activities
    14

    Most of the respondents were able to categorise their obligations. However, those that provided additional information gave another dimension on the nature and scope of community’s obligations. In particular, one community reported obligations on individuals to participate in health treatment, health education and be supported by family during this treatment in return for treatment facilities and support.

    Another community reported that in return for a municipal service, community members were obligated, among other requirements, to actively work on addressing substance misuse issues. Addressing substance misuse is a complex, often entrenched and resource intensive process. There is concern that this sort of obligation may be disproportionate to the obligation and commitment made by the federal government, particularly if the SRA is not accompanied by related services and programs. This may ultimately place an unfair burden on Indigenous communities and has the potential to fail and consequently discredit the Indigenous participants, not the funding party.

    Given the large proportion of communities obligated to provide labour and other resources, it is not surprising that 61% of respondents reported that their local CDEP scheme is involved in activities for the SRA. A further 29% reported no CDEP involvement and 10% of the respondents didn’t know if the CDEP were involved in the SRA.

    Of note is the very low number of respondents who reported that the federal government agreed under the SRA to increase CDEP places in the community. Only three communities indicated a government commitment to increase places, combined with other obligations. As noted in last year’s Social Justice Report, it is important that if an SRA requires CDEP labour from the community, this should be negotiated so that the SRA does not result in the re-allocation of necessary places away from existing activities, rather than resulting in the provision of additional SRA CDEP places.[55]

    To ensure obligations are being met by all parties, monitoring and evaluation is crucial to the SRA process. Nearly all of the respondents reported some form of monitoring of the SRA, with a small number of nil responses, or respondents unsure about the exact process. On the whole, most respondents appear satisfied with the processes in place.

    Almost a third of the respondents specifically reported that their local Indigenous Coordination Centre (ICC) is involved in the monitoring and evaluation of the SRA. Once again, most descriptions of their role was favourable although one community did express concern, describing their monitoring process as:

    ... to be hounded by the ICC Broker to spend the money and only in a particular way or process. Our organisation had to carry all the administration costs as well - no provision for that by the ICC broker or the SRA.

    However, most of the monitoring processes in place did not appear to be too onerous on the community. Many communities seem to have incorporated monitoring and reporting into existing meetings or providing data and documentation that should be readily accessible. Other examples of monitoring processes included:

    SRAs are a new way for government to engage with Indigenous communities about their needs. In last year’s report I set out guidelines for agreement making that incorporates the free, prior and informed consent of communities.[56] This year, through the national survey, I have been able to examine how communities feel the negotiation process is working for them, and in turn how it upholds these key human rights principles.

    When asked why communities decided to negotiate an SRA most indicated a particular community need or service delivery gap that they thought could be addressed by the SRA. It is noted that five respondents (8% of the sample) stated that they entered into the SRA negotiations as they felt they had no other alternative to access much needed funding.

    In the survey I was interested in how the SRA negotiation process was initiated and progressed. As illustrated in Graph 7 below, 39% of respondents indicated that the government, usually through the local ICC, approached the community and suggested the SRA. The next most frequent initiation process was by the community identifying a need itself and then approaching government (30%).

    Graph 7: Who suggested the SRA?

    Once the SRA had been suggested, Graph 8 shows that 19% of the respondents reported that community consultations were undertaken in preparation for the negotiation process. Community consultations were used to help prepare the community negotiators for the SRA negotiation and to discuss the content of the SRA and the obligations on the community. A further 27% of respondents stated that community consultations were held in combination with another method of preparation, such as community planning or engaging a negotiator. The exclusive use of professional negotiators or advisors occurred in a small number of reported SRAs (3%). Communities were much more likely to utilise members of staff from their organisation to negotiate on behalf of the community, in conjunction with community consultation or community planning processes or negotiators, totalling 33% of all respondents.

    Graph 8: How did the community prepare to make the SRA?

    In recognition of the possible complexities and barriers impacting on effective negotiation, the survey also asked participants about any assistance they received from government to facilitate the process. Graph 9 illustrates these results.

    The local ICC seems to have been most instrumental, with 33% of the respondents reporting that a staff member from the local ICC assisted in writing a community plan, with a further 3% providing resources as well. Respondents identified that a Solution Broker from the local ICC was used in 5% of cases. Solution brokers from the ICC, in addition to other support/ specialist consultant from the ICC were used in 16% of the cases reported. These results suggest that there is not an understanding of the concept of ‘solution brokers’ among Indigenous communities, as in most instances ‘a staff member from the local ICC’ will be a solution broker.

    11% of the communities surveyed stated that they received no assistance to facilitate the SRA. Through a correlation of answers, it is clear that communities that received no assistance were more likely to be dissatisfied with the SRA process overall.

    Graph 9: What assistance was provided to negotiate the SRA?

    The federal government designed SRAs seems to be a responsive, flexible way for Indigenous communities to access government assistance. They aim to cut down ‘red tape’ and therefore should occur in a timely manner. Graph 10 shows that 10 % took less than 1 month, 27% took up to 3 months to negotiate, 39% took 3-6 months and 24% took 6-12 months. Notably, one respondent indicates that the process has ‘gone on for 18 months and there is still no sign off’.

    Graph 10: How long did the negotiations for the SRA take?

    While the amount of time spent negotiating the SRA is one indicator of efficient processes, another significant consideration is whether the community considered the negotiation timeline appropriate. If the process is too slow there can be frustration that can ultimately undermine the relationship between an Indigenous community and government. Conversely, if the process moves too quickly, a community may be unable to consider the full implications of the SRA, compromising their free, prior and informed consent to the SRA. The measure of efficiency must then be once the community has signed off on the SRA and the time it takes for the delegate to consider, approve and release funds.

    Graph 11 shows community perceptions of the timeline for negotiating the SRA. 45% of the communities felt that the process went at the right pace for them. 27% felt the process was too slow; either as the community was ready to finalise the agreement but had to wait for the government to approve the agreement; there were delays during the negotiation process which meant that the agreement took longer than it should have; there was a lack of community knowledge; or a combination of all these factors. 9% of the respondents found the process too fast and felt either that the government had pressured the community to finalise and sign the agreement too quickly; that the government had set timeframes that did not allow enough time for the community to consider the implications of the proposed obligations; or both.

    Grapth 11: Was the timeline appropriate for negotiating the SRA?

    In order to ascertain whether the free, prior and informed consent of Indigenous communities was sought, the survey asked about the amount of information provided to the community during the SRA negotiation process. Graph 12 shows that 53% of communities felt that they had received the right amount of information about SRAs; this is a disturbingly low figure for this question.

    20% of the respondents didn’t feel the community had enough information. For instance, one community specifically stated, ‘All we knew was it was a funding grant, it only became apparent later that it was a SRA when they came visiting to monitor the activities’. This statement implies that the community was not aware of their respective obligations under the SRA until ICC staff visited to monitor the activities. 27% of respondents responded ‘other’, many of who acknowledged that the SRA process was new and not enough was really known by both sides at that juncture.

    Some respondents commented that information needs to be in a more accessible format. This sentiment was echoed by the 6% of respondents who thought that too much information was provided about SRAs.

    Graph 12: Was the right amount of information provided?

    Relating again to free, prior, informed consent, the survey asked how approval was sought for the SRA and how community members were informed of their obligations. Graph 13 below shows the results. The community board/ council approved 27% of the SRAs in the survey sample, and were involved in a further 27% of approvals, combined with approval from the CEO and/ or Chairperson, or a community meeting.

    Significantly, 8% of the respondents reported no approval from the community. Two of the SRAs which did not receive community approval appear to have been negotiated by non Indigenous organisations. The survey does not, however, enable us to determine the quality of the consultation process leading to approval. In one reported case where a non-Indigenous organisation appeared to have negotiated the SRA, the only form of consultation reported was a morning tea to go through the SRA with stakeholders so that they could approve and sign the document.

    Graph 13: How was the SRA approved?

    Multiple methods have been used to inform community members of their obligations under the SRA, as shown in Graph 14. The most popular (33%) was a community meeting, combined with some other method such as displaying a copy of the SRA in the community centre, providing a copy to community members or providing information at board or council meetings.

    Graph 14: What has been done to inform the community of their obligations?

    One indicator of general community satisfaction was whether or not the federal government had met its obligations under the SRA. Graph 15 shows 57% of communities reported that they were satisfied with how the government had met its obligations. Only 3% reported that the government had not met its obligations, but 19% reported that while the government had met its obligations, they were not satisfied with how they had done so. That nearly one quarter of respondents were unhappy with the nature of how government met its obligations is of significant concern.

    When asked to explain their answer, very few respondents with positive feedback provided explanation. Those with less positive perceptions cited issues around lack of recurrent funding; unreasonable reporting and administration requirements; inflexibility once the SRA is signed off; lack of ongoing government support to make the SRA work and an unequal relationship between communities and government, with communities facing a heavier burden of obligation under the SRA than government stakeholders.

    Graph 15: Are you satisfied with how the government has met its obligations?

    Communities were also asked to identify and rate the three main positive impacts of SRAs on their relationship with the federal government. All but five of the survey respondents were able to identify some positive impact on the relationship. Common themes in the responses were:

    When asked about the three main negative impacts on their relationship with the federal government, almost 70% of the respondents did not list any issues, implying that the majority of survey respondents ultimately saw the SRA process as having either no effect, or a positive effect on their existing relationship with the federal government.

    Of those 30% that did report that the SRA had a negative impact on their relationship with the federal government, issues were raised around:

    All but three communities were able to identify positive impacts on the community resulting from the SRA. Most were outcomes related to the actual SRA, ranging from modest impacts such as children being able to play basketball to increases in school support and retention, better access to nutritious food and reductions in juvenile offending. Some respondents also noted an increase in community pride and cohesion and a sense of ownership of the SRA. One community reported ‘confidence in the government post ATSIC’ and another suggested the process has encouraged them to undertake another SRA.

    Some communities saw SRAs as a way to increase accountability, with one community stating:

    The SRA is a fantastic tool to develop a range of ‘tied outcomes’, not only for the Indigenous community/organisation but also for the other stakeholders such as federal departments, state and territory agencies and other stakeholders.

    Other communities felt that the SRA was a good concept that could work, but had concerns about the implementation. For instance:

    The idea of SRAs is good but it has to be done properly. It has to help the community to have sole commitment to make sure that their part of the deal is done properly. If only there is enough money (because) this is the best way to in which the community can learn to stand on their own feet.

    50% of the respondents reported some negative impacts as a result of entering into the SRA. The most common concern was the short term nature of the funding effecting the sustainability of projects and creating, according to one respondent, ‘false hope’. One community in particular notes that if a SRA fails:

    ... it effects other programs. They become very disappointed about everything...It is hard to start another project because the trust and the faith in doing something are not there anymore.

    Particularly in remote areas, there was a perception among commun