When sorrows
come, they come not single spies
But in battalions.
But in battalions.
Hamlet Act 4, scene 5.
A recent blog post from NACCHO, the peak body for the
Community controlled health organisations brought to my attention that research
published in 2011 had found that 94 percent of Indigenous prisoners in the
Northern Territory suffered from hearing loss. 94 percent!
Here
is a link to the ABC news story earlier this month. Here
is a link to an article in the Indigenous
Law Bulletin in 2012 reporting the research.
Apart from the obvious issues related to the administration
of justice which arise from this level of disability, and which are discussed
in the articles linked above, it strikes me as a terrific – or terrible - example of how in the Indigenous policy
domain, and more saliently for Indigenous people themselves, challenges come
‘in battalions’, not as ‘single spies’.
We all know intuitively that one problem contributes to
another. Poor housing, poor sanitation, poor access to fresh fruit and
vegetables, poor diet, and poor education and literacy leads to poor health,
particularly for vulnerable children. Poor environmental conditions and poor health,
particularly amongst children, leads to ongoing chronic disease, and lifelong
conditions such as diabetes, kidney disease, eye nose and throat conditions,
and hearing loss. Hearing loss leads to learning difficulties, frustration, and
ultimately to a loss of interest in attending school. Dispossession leads to
social and cultural trauma, and constrains economic opportunity; impacts which
are increasingly recognised as having intergenerational impacts. Lack of
economic opportunity, poor education and skill deficits lead to loss of
self-esteem, boredom, mental health issues, and potentially anti-social
behaviour including alcohol, drug and substance abuse. In turn, these
conditions can lead to widespread Fetal Alcohol Syndrome (FASD), which in turn
limit educational options, predispose individuals to mental health issues and
potentially suicide, and adversely affect life opportunities across the
economic, social and cultural domains.
I set out this admittedly anecdotal and random snapshot
merely to illustrate the overwhelming magnitude of the challenges facing many
individuals and the concomitant complexity of the policy challenge which aims
to remediate or reverse disadvantage.
One of the consequences of deep seated individual and
societal disadvantage is that many individuals breach social and cultural
norms, and end up in the justice system. The extent of that problem is
enormous, particularly in remote Australia.
An April 2016 post on the Parliamentary Library blog Flag
Post (link
here),
assessing progress over the 25 years since the landmark Royal Commission into
Aboriginal Deaths in Custody, reported mixed results: in those 25 years, the
absolute numbers of Indigenous deaths in custody were less than the 1991
benchmark in only one year. Encouragingly, rates of Indigenous deaths in
custody had declined by more than half, from a high of around 0.45 per 100 prisoners
in some years to around 0.1 per 100 prisoners in the most recent statistics, a
rate which was below the non-Indigenous rate. This suggests that determined
policy action backed by political will is able to make a positive difference.
Yet while rates of indigenous deaths in custody have
declined, rates of Indigenous incarceration have increased. In fact, the
Parliamentary Library cites data indicating Indigenous prisoners as a
proportion of the overall prison population have doubled since the Royal Commission
from14 percent to 28 percent of all prisoners.
Under the heading ‘What next?’ the Parliamentary Library
concluded with the following assessment:
In the wake of this dramatic increase in incarceration, some have
argued that the
recommendations of the Royal Commission, particularly on prosecution for minor
offences and steps to Indigenous self-determination, were never adequately
implemented. Others argue that the Royal Commission did not
correctly prioritise the causes of high crime and therefore incarceration
rates: substance (abuse, and childhood deprivation, abuse and neglect.
The Change the Record Coalition, the Australian
Medical Association, the Australian
Red Cross, and Save the
Children agree that alcohol
and drug abuse and poor
childhood outcomes are driving Indigenous incarceration, and Indigenous-led
programs practicing ‘justice
reinvestment’ are needed.
Many stakeholders have called for a new Closing the Gap target to be
created for incarceration rates. Introduction of a ‘justice target’ was a
recommendation of the 2011 House of Representatives Committee inquiry Doing Time - Time For Doing: Indigenous youth in the
criminal justice system. In 2013 setting
this target was part of the ALP’s Federal Election Indigenous policy. Minister for Indigenous Affairs Nigel
Scullion stated in
2014 that the
Government would prioritise acting on Indigenous incarceration through the
existing Closing the Gap targets.
A recent May 2017 report by PwC and four partners titled Indigenous incarceration: Unlock the facts
(link
here,
also available at www.pwc.com.au) outlines
in a highly accessible format the extraordinary levels of over-representation
of Indigenous Australians in prison. The report notes that Indigenous men are
imprisoned at 11 times the rate of the general male population; Indigenous
women at 15 times the rate of the general female population; and Indigenous
youth are imprisoned at 25 times the rate of non-Indigenous youth. In remote
regions such as the Kimberley, Indigenous people are 40 times more likely to be
incarcerated than the non-Indigenous population (Kimberley Development
Commission Regional Investment Blueprint p 40: link
here).
The PwC report helpfully identifies and discusses the key
drivers of Indigenous incarceration, estimates the substantial cost to the
Australian economy of Indigenous incarceration ($8bn) and thus the potential
reform dividend available if reform is successful.
Finally, the report goes on to recommend a reform approach
involving a suite of five broad policy components which they argue are
essential for lasting reform. The five components are:
1. Self-determination;
2. System
reform;
3. Law
reform;
4. Increased
community awareness; and
5. Specific
initiatives and programmatic responses, particularly Indigenous controlled and
led.
It was at this point that I baulked. Reform in complex
policy areas requires more than the identification of the problem, and more
than an implicit diagnosis of causality. The Parliamentary Library identified a
range of diagnoses (albeit embedded in the links to their final paragraphs).
But unsurprisingly they stopped short of advocating specific policy
interventions. The PwC report, in listing the five elements of lasting reform,
implicitly merges their diagnoses with policy prescription: a lack of community
ownership and control of policy responses; the continuing persistence of deepseated
disadvantage, unspecified reforms to laws; a lack of community support for
reform, and an absence or continuing need for specific programs. As policy
prescription, this essentially amounts to an exercise in tautology.
PwC do however use the continuing existence of disadvantage
to promote one specific policy initiative, the introduction of a ‘justice
target as part of the Closing the Gap targets.
The advantage of such a target would be that it would focus
policymakers’ attention, both in Canberra and the states and territories, on
the issue of Indigenous incarceration and incentivise them to explore a wide
suite of initiatives, large and small, which would hopefully drive changes to
reduce the rate and levels of incarceration.
The reality is that where policy challenges are
characterised by complex causality, it is most often the case that no single
initiative or intervention will of itself be decisive in driving positive
change. Moreover, policymakers act within contexts and environments which are
constrained: by policy capability, by politics, by resources, and so on. The real
world policy challenge is to design a set of incentive structures which
encourage policymakers across jurisdictions, and at all levels within
jurisdictions, to work on a sustained basis toward the desired outcome.
One such innovation was reported on in The Australian last
week: ‘Home detention to keep indigenous offenders out of jail’ (link
here).
While not a panacea, it seems clear that greater use of home detention and
community corrections orders offers many advantages apart from the obvious
metric of keeping individuals out of prison. The Victorian Auditor General (link
here)
recently identified significant cost savings from the use of community
corrections orders, along with reduced recidivism rates compared to prisoners.
He was however also critical of the levels of support which were allocated to
supporting community corrections orders, suggesting that implementing such a
policy is not necessarily simple.
There will be many other similar opportunities, large and
small, across the nation which could assist in lowering Indigenous incarceration
rates. Perhaps an innovative policymaker in the NT will devise a way to reduce
juvenile hearing loss in an effort to address a key precursor to youth
offending!
A new justice target in the Closing the Gap targets would
appear on its face to assist in driving desired policy innovation and reform.
Of course, the target needs to be well crafted and able to be measured clearly,
and needs to be ambitious enough to drive sustained action.
There are strong indications that the Government is prepared
to reverse its previous antipathy and consider such a justice target as part of
the current review by COAG of the Closing the Gap targets. See this ABC story
from March this year (link
here).
The ongoing failure to gain traction in what are in most
cases relatively modest aspirations appear to have caused a rethink of the
current Closing the Gap targets. COAG at its June 2017 meeting (link
here)
noted:
COAG leaders welcomed the work to refresh the Closing the Gap
agenda, focussing on a strength-based approach that supports Indigenous
advancement, working in partnership with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander
peoples. This work will inform efforts to develop a refreshed agenda and
targets over the remainder of 2017, implementation principles, as well as
advice to COAG’s second meeting of 2017 on an approach for the next phase of
Closing the Gap.
A refreshed set of targets would open an opportunity to
strengthen the whole of government focus on Indigenous incarceration.
If policymakers responding to a national target design
interventions which incentivise the police, the courts, and indeed the
community appropriately, there is a prospect that solutions to the crisis in
Indigenous incarceration might emerge over time, and progressively reduce the ‘sorrows’
embedded in the current policy settings. That would be a good outcome.
No comments:
Post a Comment