Words and actions: the future of the Prime Minister’s Indigenous Advisory Council

                  Suit the action to the word, the word to the action

                                                Hamlet Act 3, Scene 2.

In April 2017, I posted (link here) a critical analysis of the operations of the Prime Minister’s Indigenous Advisory Council (IAC). Among other things, I was critical of the use of government appointees as representatives of Indigenous interests, and concluded that:

…the risk of the current Advisory Council arrangements is that sooner or later they degrade into a generalised ‘talk shop’ without any real substantive policy content, with the real purpose being to provide a cover or façade to shield what are in effect unilateral government decisions from criticism….…… Perhaps the strongest argument for greater transparency around Indigenous advisory structures would be to eliminate the possibility that sceptics such as myself have cause to doubt the robustness of the policy process itself.

Re-reading my 2017 post has not led me to revise my views. I recommend readers read the full post.

In the almost two years since then, we have had a change of Prime Minister, and a change of Minister for Indigenous Affairs, along with the establishment of a new agency, the NIAA (link here), within the Prime Minister’s portfolio. We have also seen a number of related developments in the broader policy domain:

The emergence of the National Coalition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peak Organisations and an associated partnership agreement between COAG and the National Coalition focussed on refreshing the Closing the Gap targets (link here).

The Government’s rejection of the Uluru Statement and the subsequent establishment of a two-phase ‘co-design process to develop models for an Indigenous voice at local, regional and national levels’. An appointed Senior Advisory Group co-chaired by Tom Calma and Marcia Langton will oversee this process (link here). Just today (15 January 2020), the Minister has announced the appointment of the members of the National Indigenous Voice Co-design Group (link here). This latter group will be co-chaired by Dr Donna Odegaard and an un-named senior official of NIAA.

The establishment of an appointed Indigenous Reference Group (IRG) which ‘advises the government about northern Australia matters’ and ‘supports and advises the Ministerial Forum on Northern Development’ (link here). The IRG membership is expertise based and explicitly not ‘representative’ although it includes members from each of the three northern jurisdictions plus the Torres Strait. While it is not clear from the departmental website, it seems likely that Minister Canavan appoints the IRG members. He has responsibility for the Office of Northern Development and the implementation of the White Paper on Northern Development (link here).

Finally, the Government has allowed (through decisions to not provide funding) the National Congress of Australia’s First Peoples to go into voluntary administration (link here). The National Congress, which was initiated and designed by Indigenous people (notably including Tom Calma), and was based on open membership and an elected leadership, was supported and funded by the former Labor Government as a national representative and advocacy body for Indigenous peoples.

Clearly, four different models for accessing Indigenous advice and views are in play here, including three that have been utilised by the current Government. This appears to point to a deep-seated structural confusion within the Government on the appropriate way to engage best with Indigenous interests on the breadth of its policy agenda.

Why does this matter? One reason it matters is that reliance on ad hoc advice on key issues meets immediate political and policy needs, but the majority of what Governments do relates to less high profile policy and program issues that nevertheless have the potential to impact on citizens’ lives. A focus limited to high profile policy issues will thus risk creating serious gaps in the structures of engagement on policy.

A second reason it matters is that in the absence of a comprehensive and cogent policy statement from Government on its approach to working with Indigenous interests, we are left having to parse and interpret both its words and its actions to discern its real policy approach.

A third reason it matters is that it makes comparing government actions against their own policy yardsticks all but impossible. To take a trivial, but highly apposite example, in his media release (link here) announcing the establishment of an appointed senior advisory group on the voice, the Minister stated, apparently oblivious to the deeply embedded irony:

“The best outcomes are achieved when Indigenous Australians are at the centre of decision-making. We know that for too long decision making treated the symptoms rather than the cause.”

“It’s time that all governments took better steps to empower individuals and communities, and work in partnership to develop practical and long lasting programmes and policies that both address the needs of Indigenous Australians and ensure that Indigenous voices are heard as equally as any other Australian voice.”

The reason this statement is infected with irony is that by reserving to itself the right to appoint who it engages with, the Government is effectively saying that it is prepared to empower some individuals and some communities, and will ensure that some Indigenous voices are heard as equally as any other Australian voice. How should we assess the stated commitment to empowerment and partnership when the Government chooses who it listens to and engages with?

Of the three approaches the Government has adopted, I strongly favour the model based on engagement with the coalition of peaks on national issues (and by implication engagement with sectoral peak bodies on second order issues). It provides a much more robust assurance of representative engagement than relying on appointed interlocutors, and simultaneously builds the institutional resilience of Indigenous organisations. Of course, Government is complex and there will be times and issues where appointed experts will be able to add value. However, if there is to be any suggestion that their work amounts to ‘representation of Indigenous interests’ or ‘co-design with Indigenous interests’, then the essential quid pro quo must be an entirely open process where the advice provided by appointed experts is open to all citizens to consider and if necessary critique.

In relation to the Prime Minister’s Indigenous Advisory Council, setting aside the more fundamental issues raised in my earlier post, it has been apparent to close observers for some time that all is not well.

It appears that the IAC has not met since February 2019. Normally, the Council has issued a communique after each of its meetings, yet the most recent communique on the NIAA website (link here) is a report of the 13 February meeting. Nor has NIAA posted the Council’s annual report for 2019. Indeed, the NIAA web page fails to list the membership of the Council, apart from mentioning that the current co-chair is Roy Ah-See.

In April 2019, the Government appointed former Council co-chair Andrea Mason as a Commissioner on the Royal Commission into Violence, Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation of People with Disability (link here), creating a vacancy on the Advisory Council. To date, that vacancy has not been filled. In fact, for the bulk of 2019, the Council has had only five members out of a possible 12.

Mr Ah-See appears to have become disenchanted with the Government, probably over the approach to the Uluru statement and the voice. In August 2019, The Australian reported that 40 prominent Indigenous leaders (including Noel Pearson and Roy Ah-See had written to the Prime Minister and Minister Wyatt ‘with a proposed and ­detailed pathway for an Indigenous voice to parliament that they say can be enshrined in the ­Constitution by the end of 2021’ (link here).

The Government did not respond to this letter for an extended period (if at all) (Link here). The frustration of the Council co-chair Mr Ah-See was made public when he made a searing critique of the government on national radio on 20 October 2019 (link here). In a further interview on 29 October, he alleged that the Advisory Council had been put in a holding pattern and had not met since February (link here).

The failure of the IAC to meet since the election coincides with the change of minister from Scullion to Wyatt. However it also coincides with the Government’s apparent struggle to develop a coherent narrative on its approach to dealing with the calls for constitutional recognition and a Voice to Parliament.  What we haven’t had however is any clear explanation from the Government of its approach to engagement with Indigenous interests generally, and the Prime Minister’s Indigenous Advisory Council in particular.

There was a request in September 2019 for documents relating to communications between the Minister and the Indigenous Advisory Council, and for documents relating to the appointment of members to fill vacancies. The documents released (link here) indicated that there was advice to the Minister and Prime Minister on 15 July 2019, but the content of that advice has not been released. A redacted question time brief for Minister Wyatt dated 25 June was released which stated, inter alia:

The Prime Minister and I value the advice we receive from the Council….…OUR COMMITMENTS
• The continuation of the Council demonstrates the Government’s commitment to work in genuine partnership with First Australians.
• The Council offers Indigenous Australians a voice at the highest level of government – directly to the Prime Minister.
• The Government’s priorities for Indigenous Australians include finalising the Closing the Gap Refresh, preventing young people from dying through suicide, increasing school attendance, getting people into jobs, enhanced local decision making through an enhanced Empowered Communities model, co-design of a Voice and truth telling.

Of course, the paucity of the documents listed in the FOI response, and the apparent complete absence of any written communication between the Minister and the Council over a three-month period early in his tenure as Minister gives the lie to these tendentious talking points.

The Government is approaching a decision point that will determine its approach to accessing high-level advice from Indigenous interests. This arises because the Council’s current membership is coming up for renewal. Reappointments if they are to be made are required as of 31 January (Link here).

So what will the Government decide? There are essentially two options.

The first (and in my view less likely) would be to refresh the membership of the Advisory Council and seek to continue as if nothing has occurred. There are a number of factors that mitigate against such an approach. The Prime Minister is clearly not as comfortable with Indigenous affairs as his two predecessors, and will seek to shift as much profile as he can to Minister Wyatt. Having an Advisory Council reporting to the Prime Minister does not sit well with such an approach. In addition, to the extent that a refreshed Council is appointed with a credible membership, it raises the prospect of future conflict or tension with the recently announced Senior Advisory Group and the Co-design Group on the Voice. The Government will be keen to minimise the possibility of different advice emerging from three (and eventually four when a local and regional co-design group is announced) appointed advisory bodies.

The second (and more likely) option is that the Government will allow the IAC to disappear. There is little substantive to show for the Council’s seven year existence, and there is no constituency advocating for its continuation. The Government may even be tempted to allow the Council to expire without any announcement. More likely would be a short announcement pointing to the new Senior Advisory Group and the associated Co-design Groups on the Voice as the key mechanisms for Indigenous input on policy (notwithstanding that it is a single issue mechanism).

It is clear that ever since the demise of ATSIC, Governments have struggled to devise effective mechanisms to engage with Indigenous interests. In my view the way forward is neither of the two options discussed above.

Rather, the Commonwealth should commit to actioning in a substantive way Minister Wyatt’s statement quoted above:

“It’s time that all governments took better steps to empower individuals and communities, and work in partnership to develop practical and long lasting programmes and policies that both address the needs of Indigenous Australians and ensure that Indigenous voices are heard as equally as any other Australian voice.”

This will require more than a minimalist adherence to the words in a media release. It will necessarily involve engaging with Indigenous interests that do not agree with the Government, or who are critical. It will necessarily involve committing (by which I mean substantive commitment) to co-designing policy and programs with leaders and individuals that are not selected and appointed by the Government, and who are broadly representative of the diverse range of interests within First Nations communities. One policy implication is that it will require governments to do much more than they have to ensure peak bodies exist and are funded for each of the major policy sectors impacting Indigenous lives.

Finding an effective way forward to engaging with Indigenous interest will also require a commitment to explaining policy approaches to the community at large, not hiding behind appointed individuals who are beholden to the Minister for their position and its associated status. Importantly, it will also require a commitment to openness and transparency not just with Indigenous citizens, but with the broader Australian community. After all, if the broader community is not in a position to understand the Government’s rationales for its policy directions, and thus is not inclined to be supportive, the prospects of constructive and inclusive engagement of the nation generally with First Nations citizens is a chimera.