Opportunities and risks: Important developments related to Closing the Gap

Last week, on 12 December, the Council of Australians Governments (COAG) met in Adelaide. The meeting was path breaking for Indigenous affairs policy insofar as it outlined a new approach to the establishment of Closing the Gap (CTG) targets by governments at all levels.

The COAG Communique (link here) said it best. COAG is:

committed to ensuring that the finalisation of targets and implementation of the Closing the Gap framework occurs through a genuine, formal partnership between the Commonwealth, state and territory governments and Indigenous Australians through their representatives…

Today, COAG issued a statement outlining a strengths based framework, which prioritises intergenerational change and the aspirations and priorities of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples across all Australian communities. The finalisation of this framework and associated draft targets will be agreed through a formal partnership.

Governments and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander representatives will share ownership of, and responsibility for, a jointly agreed framework and targets and ongoing monitoring of the Closing the Gap agenda. This will include an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander-led three yearly comprehensive evaluation of the framework and progress.

The arrangements of the formal partnership between COAG and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander representation will be settled by the end of February 2019, and will include a Ministerial Council on Closing the Gap, with Ministers nominated by jurisdictions and representation from Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. The framework and draft targets will be finalised through this Council by mid-2019, ahead of endorsement by COAG.

The establishment of a formal partnership is extremely significant for three reasons.

First because Closing the Gap represents an overarching policy process, truly national in scope and focus, the proposed Partnership will provide a guaranteed mechanism for the inclusion of Indigenous perspectives in macro-level policy planning processes at both national and state and territory levels. Second, because once established, this Partnership will likely create an opportunity for Indigenous interests to influence other phases of the policy development process, and thus represents a new avenue or pathway for greater inclusion of Indigenous voices and perspectives in policy formulation.

Of course, the degree to which these opportunities are made concrete will depend on the design parameters of the partnership (how often the parties meet, how agendas are determined, etc.), and the relative bargaining strength of the parties in undertaking the internal negotiations within the partnership. One constraint which Indigenous interests will face is that COAG processes are generally based on the achievement of consensus amongst governments, which means that any differences of views between governments will limit the capacity of Indigenous interests to prevail in persuading COAG members to take on board indigenous views and perspectives. The inclusion of an evaluation function, presumably led by the newly appointed Indigenous Commissioner on the Productivity Commission will provide a welcome source of independent oversight and scrutiny over the effectiveness of the CTG framework, and thus by implication, of the Partnership’s effectiveness.

The third reason the establishment of such a Partnership is important is that it will likely lead to the creation of a new national ‘peak of peaks’ for the representation of indigenous interests in engagement with the executive arms of governments at national, state and territory levels. I see this as a positive development, as it reflects the reality that policy development is increasingly complex and Indigenous interests will only successfully engage with governments if they utilise the research and advocacy expertise and resources available within the various peak bodies. A potential downside which Indigenous interests will need to consider and if necessary address is that the varying structures of peak bodies may effectively filter out the direct experience and views of local and regional communities. If this were to occur, it would likely flow through to the policy formulation process.

COAG also released a related COAG Statement on the Closing the Gap Refresh (link here). This document is in my view more problematic and begins to suggest just how complex the CTG process may become. I recommend it be read in full as I cannot summarise it adequately here in the space available.

The Statement begins with a recitation of previous COAG decisions, including the proposed focus on a ‘strength based approach’. The Statement then notes:

COAG has now agreed draft targets for further consultation to ensure they align with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples and communities’ priorities and ambition as a basis for developing action plans.

The Statement then sets out sections on partnerships, outlines a vision for the future, lists the Indigenous formulated community priorities for the next ten years, and acknowledges the existence of what it terms ‘cross system priorities’ which ‘require action across multiple targets’.

The core section for present purposes relates to ‘Refreshed Targets’. The Statement notes (emphasis added):

The Commonwealth, states and territories share accountability for the refreshed Closing the Gap agenda and are jointly accountable outcomes for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. COAG commits to working together to improve outcomes in every priority area of the Closing the Gap Refresh.

The refreshed Closing the Gap agenda will commit to targets that all governments will be accountable to the community for achieving. …

…While overall accountability for the framework is shared, different levels of government will have lead responsibility for specific targets. The lead jurisdiction is the level of government responsible for monitoring reports against progress and initiating further action if that target is not on track, including through relevant COAG bodies.

The refreshed framework recognises that one level of government may have a greater role in policy and program delivery in relation to a particular target while another level of government may play a greater role in funding, legislative or regulatory functions. Meeting specific targets will require the collaborative efforts of the Commonwealth, states and territories, regardless of which level of government has lead responsibility. Commonwealth, state and territory actions for each target will be set out in jurisdictional action plans, and may vary between jurisdictions. COAG acknowledges that all priority areas have interdependent social, economic and health determinants that impact the achievement of outcomes and targets.

Through a co-design approach, jurisdictional action plans will be developed in genuine partnership with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities, setting out the progress that needs to be made nationally and in each jurisdiction for the targets to be met. Action plans will clearly specify what actions each level of government is accountable for, inform jurisdictional trajectories for each target and establish how all levels of government will work together and with communities, organisations and other stakeholders to achieve the targets. Starting points, past trends and local circumstances differ, so jurisdictions’ trajectories will vary and may have different end-points…

My purpose in highlighting the text above in bold is to shine a light on the likely complexity of the arrangements currently envisaged. The greater the complexity, the more difficult it will be for governments to be held accountable, and thus for an appropriate policy response to be developed.

The Statement goes on to list out 15 draft targets, seven of which are Commonwealth-led and eight state-led. I don’t propose to undertake a detailed analysis of the targets but merely note that the proposed Commonwealth-led targets are overwhelmingly to be achieved by 2028. A detailed analysis would, inter alia, form a view as to the level of inherent policy challenge in each target. To take one at random, aiming for 60 percent of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people aged between 25-64 years to be employed by 2028 appears too soft. In effect, it means that we are prepared to see 40 percent of the Indigenous work force unemployed after ten years of policy focus.

A key issue embedded within the COAG approach, which was perhaps implicit or nascent within the original 2008 CTG targets, relates to their fundamental purpose. At one end of the spectrum, they might be conceptualised as an incomplete selection of key indicators which taken together represent a proxy indicator for overall performance in addressing deep disadvantage within the Indigenous domain. At the other end of the spectrum, the targets can be conceptualised as a comprehensive selection of the most important policy areas requiring attention, and thus are accepted as the areas requiring prioritisation by governments to the exclusion of other policy issues. While there is no apparent acknowledgment of this issue in current policy documentation around CTG, the current refresh appears to have shifted perceptibly towards the ‘comprehensive list of priorities ‘ end of the spectrum, and this in turn raises important questions regarding the approach of governments to those policy issues which will not be included explicitly as targets. Accordingly, going forward, there is a case for a much clearer articulation of the COAG approach in relation to whether the targets are mere proxies, or a comprehensive listing of policy priorities.

I have four specific suggestions to make regarding the proposed targets, none of which appear to be reflected in the current draft.

First, the targets need to explicitly list the current mainstream level or baseline for each target and then propose a target level for Indigenous citizens. This ensures a level of transparency in terms of the proposed targets, and makes clear how ambitious the target is designed to be.

Second, the targets (and the mainstream comparisons) need to be broken down into two components: an urban and regional component and a remote/very remote component. Only if this is done will the CTG arrangements be effective in driving policy attention to those policy issues most in need of attention. Indeed, without such an approach, it is likely that the CTG process will actually facilitate and encourage policy aimed at ignoring remote citizens since the majority of the targets will be able to be met by focussing mainstream programs on the four fifths of the Indigenous population who reside in urban and regional Australia. Urban and regional indigenous populations have legitimate needs, but it would be a serious mistake to establish a CTG system that allowed targets to be ‘met’ while effectively ignoring the needs of remote citizens.

Third, each target needs to be separately broken down by jurisdiction so that it is clear what the current relevant mainstream, urban/regional and remote/very remote data are in each jurisdiction.

Fourth, given the imperative of designing a system which is both sophisticated, workable, and not overly influenced by political positioning between the Commonwealth and the states, I propose the Productivity Commission be tasked with developing a second set of Draft Targets, which would then form the basis for co-design discussions between Indigenous interests and COAG.

I see three enormous flaws that permeate the current CTG Refresh proposals and targets.

The first serious flaw I see with the current proposals is that the whole process will inevitably become bogged down in a complex and incomprehensible array of separate reports from eight jurisdictions, with differing formats, different action plans, and effectively no accountability. The result will be an absence of effective political accountability since when everyone shares responsibility and accountability, no jurisdiction will accept responsibility for poor progress.  While we live in a federal system with shared responsibilities and the potential for differing policy approaches, and under a constitution which provides for concurrent powers on Indigenous issues between the Commonwealth and the states, in political and policy terms, the Commonwealth is primus inter pares. The current proposals seek to avoid or fudge that reality and instead reflect the current Government’s determination to shift as much political and policy responsibility for Indigenous policy failure by government to the states and territories. This is an abdication of the Commonwealth’s longstanding role in Indigenous affairs, and is being undertaken without any open and up-front discussion of the Government’s policy intentions.

A second fundamental problem with the current proposals is that they do not address one of the core shortcomings of the original 2008 CTG targets. Namely, there is no attempt to square the circle, and ensure that Governments allocate adequate financial resources to meeting the identified targets.

A third and related flaw with the CTG process is that targets are set which are partial and lack ambition. This then becomes a circular process, where resources are not required because the targets are not ambitious. The inevitable result is that the CTG process becomes more rhetorical than substantive

We need to acknowledge the reality: this is a strategy in name only. It sets targets, it makes ‘commitments’, but it offers no guarantee that the financial and other resources required for effective implementation will be available. In fact, the emphasis on ‘sharing’ accountability with the states and the territories just magnifies this issue, as it allows the national government to lay blame for missed targets on the states and territories, and shifts any arguments about lack of financial commitment to a lower jurisdiction. If this were a serious strategy, COAG would allocate resources to implement targets directed to entirely removing the relevant gaps in socials indicators, and then decide what can be achieved with the available funds.

In my view, this refresh proposal is on a slow but inevitable road to failure. It is fundamentally dishonest because it is presented as a strategy for achieving a policy end (closing the gap) whereas it is primarily a mechanism to persuade the Australian public that governments are addressing issues of Indigenous disadvantage. This is poor policy because it raises expectations amongst Indigenous interests that are ultimately bound to be dashed, with unknown consequences for future social cohesion. In particular, it seeks to ‘partner with’, and thus implicate Indigenous interests in a process which is, on present indications, destined to fail. It suggests to the community at large that governments are actively and effectively addressing the challenges of Indigenous disadvantage when they are not, and it thus has the effect of increasing complacency in the community at large as to the nature of the challenges facing both Indigenous people and the nation as a whole (this was one theme in my submission to the CTG refresh process, published here). We deserve better from our governments.

I began by pointing to the positive developments inherent in the formal partnership proposals for Indigenous interests. Indigenous peak bodies have welcomed the new approach (link here to NACCHO’s media release). The risk that NACCHO and the other Indigenous peak bodies face is that in ten years’ time, the refreshed CTG process will not have overcome the deep-seated and informal structural exclusion of Indigenous interests in Australia and the consequential deep-seated disadvantage that permeates many Indigenous lives. The Indigenous peaks will need to step very carefully in terms of their engagement and ‘partnership’ with Australia’s governments.

The CTG process has potential, it can be made to work with the allocation of adequate financial and human resources by government, and technically proficient design of the targets, but it can also be the complex and extremely technical façade behind which governments hide as they pursue other more pressing national priorities.

The most important contribution that Indigenous interests can bring to the co-design of the CTG process is a two-fold insistence that COAG and its constituent governments focus on the underlying systemic and structural factors driving Indigenous disadvantage, and commit real financial and human resources to the complete elimination of Indigenous disadvantage. A good first step in fleshing out these fundamental pre-requisites would be for the Indigenous peak bodies and COAG to agree to an upfront Productivity Commission review outlining the scale of the challenge and the potential policy pathways which might be chosen to go forward in devising an effective policy strategy to substantively close the gap. Laying out such a policy baseline is the best strategy available to reduce the current extreme risk of failure.