The Commonwealth is taking us headlong into a remote policy chasm: but who cares?

                                                             This world to me is as a lasting storm.

Pericles, Act 4, scene 1.

 

In 2012, the then Commonwealth  Labor Government put in place a ten year initiative to support better life outcomes for Aboriginal people in the Northern Territory. This initiative followed on from the 2007 Northern Territory Emergency Response.  Originally known as Stronger Futures in the Northern Territory (SFNT), the initiative included a $3.4 billion funding package over ten years and complementary legislation. This initiative, pursued under the national Closing the Gap Framework only applied to the NT and included a sunset after ten years. The sunset takes effect from 17 July 2022.

 

Coalition Governments continued the initiative although they reduced some of the funding commitments, negotiated a new National Partnership Agreement for the funding and slowly withdrew resources to administer the legislation including in relation to the popular store licencing measures. 

 

There has been no public review or evaluation of the measures, as occurred for the Northern Territory Emergency Response before Stronger Futures in the NT was agreed.  However, the Coalition Government  recently announced the extension of its National Partnership Agreement for NT Remote Aboriginal Investment (NTRAI)  for two years (link here). The extension of the NP is welcome as it ensures that funding of $173m over two years is committed. The Ministers’ media release gave further details on the purposes of that funding:

The new funding across the NTRAI schedules of children and schooling and community safety will deliver services such as: police services supporting 300 officers to work in remote locations; alcohol reduction services, including support for a local health workforce and community determined initiatives; Aboriginal interpreter services to assist with interactions with social and justice systems; children and schooling services such as the Families as First Teachers early childhood program across 36 communities and capital works for teacher housing; health services focused on hearing and oral health in remote communities. (Delivered by Department of Health)

The extension also provides continued funding for critical child and family safety services, including women’s safe houses.

 

The Ministers’ media statement also noted:

The end of term review of NTRAI identified that more time was required to work with the Northern Territory Government and Aboriginal stakeholders to design future arrangements that are sustainable and continue to meet the community need.

 

This paragraph is in bureaucratic code: it probably means that the Government would prefer to cease funding, but wishes to defer a decision on long term funding until after the election. Unfortunately, the Review mentioned does not appear to have been released by the agency, as a search of the NIAA website was unsuccessful in locating the review. Consequently, we are not in a position to place the statement in its proper context.  

 

The other missing element in the Ministers’ media statement is the future of the SFNT legislation itself. A number of components of that legislation also sunset on 17 July 2022. These include the SFNT provisions on alcohol management in Aboriginal Protected Areas (APAs), the operation of Australian Government’s regulation of Community Living Areas (CLAs) and Town Camps, and provisions for store licencing in remote communities. Without action by either the Commonwealth or NT Governments, the effect of the legislative sunset will be to revert to the pre-2007 regulatory frameworks. In some cases, this will be out of date NT legislation (e.g. in relation to CLAs and Town Camps), in other cases, it will be a combination of NT arrangements and/or no arrangements whatsoever (e.g. in relation to alcohol and food security).

 

For completeness, it is worth noting that some other complementary legislation enacted along with the SFNT Act was not sunsetted and will continue (eg. income management provisions, customary law in criminal sentencing, and school attendance and welfare reform provisions).

 

The effect of this situation is that Aboriginal citizens in the NT face significant levels of uncertainty regarding the future institutional and policy frameworks applying across a number of major policy areas in the NT.

 

In a normal world with a competent and transparent Government, there would be a public review and evaluation that would assess the effectiveness of the SFNT measures and consider the implications of the sunsetting and  lay out the Governments preferred way forward. Such a review would be published and the community would have a chance to express its views on the proposed policy framework. In particular, if the Commonwealth proposes to withdraw from any of these policy areas, then the community should be allowed to understand its motivations or rationale for doing so. Further, in such a scenario, the proposed response of the NTG becomes highly relevant.  Taxpayers have a stake in this too.  It goes without saying  that taxpayers, voters, and especially Indigenous Territorians are entitled to know what the impact of a substantial investment by the Commonwealth over the past decade has been, particularly with respect to Closing the Gap. The implications for Aboriginal Territorians are enormous.  

 

Unfortunately, we don’t appear to live in a normal world. The Government has not laid out its intentions in relation to the legislation, a Federal election is due by May, and the new Government will be faced with an immediate legislative and policy challenge post-election. If the Government is returned, there may well be a new Minister, and it seems unlikely that the Government will have taken final decisions in advance of the election. In the event of a Labor or Labor/Greens Government, a new Minister will need to develop a policy position, take it to Cabinet, obtain a decision and draft, introduce, and negotiate passage for legislation within the first eight weeks of the Government’s term.

 

The consequences of the new Government (of whichever stripe) failing to legislate will be that the SFNT legislation will cease to operate, its alcohol provisions would cease, the current remote stores licencing arrangements will cease, and land administration policy for CLAs and town camps will revert to the NTG.

 

In relation to alcohol, such an outcome would remove the alcohol regulation framework currently in place, and implicitly shift regulatory responsibility to the NTG. The SFNT policy framework was primarily focussed on harm minimisation. Any shift of responsibility to the NTG will introduce a number of levels of uncertainty. At the most fundamental level, it may take many months for the NTG to itself decide on its preferred framework. When such a policy framework is finalised, there must be some doubt regarding the level of commitment to harm minimisation that will be brought to bear given that the NTG in late 2020 introduced legislation to circumvent the Territory’s own independent Liquor Commission processes (which are designed to ensure community harm minimisation) in relation to the establishment of a proposed Dan Murphy store in Darwin (link here).

 

The consequence of the cessation of the remote stores licencing framework would be to increase the level of food security risk considerably, and potentially open up opportunities for new store entrants with much less focus on delivering healthy and affordable foodstuffs and other essentials. This could undercut the profitability of those stores doing the right thing, and lead to an across the board deterioration in the quality of remote stores, with adverse consequences for remote community health, and increased economic pressure on families.

 

In relation to the land legislation, the removal of the SFNT provisions would remove the increased flexibility and capacity of Community Living Area owners to deal in their land in ways which facilitate their ongoing residence.

 

These are all quite technical issues, and I have summarised them at  a high level. But the bottom line is that the consequences of a poorly designed and implemented transition from SNFT is serious, and the window of opportunity for a new Government to even ensure that the SFNT continues unchanged is extraordinarily tight.

 

Unfortunately, in the absence of transparency about the current Governments intentions, we are unable to properly consider the implications. It is possible that the Government has developed a preferred pathway forward, or even taken formal decisions regarding that pathway. But no announcements have been made.

 

My intuitive assessment, reinforced by the decision that has been announced to renew the NTRAI for only two years and not ten years, is that the Government would prefer to shift responsibility to the NTG for all current SFNT measures.  . This would be consistent with their larger project of shifting Indigenous program and policy responsibilities wherever possible to the states and territories.

 

Clearly, such a decision would be politically problematic in the lead-up to an election. Hence the complete silence from the Government.  Yet the risk is that it will create the potential for a serious interregnum in regulatory arrangements in three areas of crucial significance to remote Territorians, and/or create preconditions that increase the risk of poorly thought out policy design and implementation in the transition to new arrangements.

 

These issues are hidden in plain sight. While they are on the public record, the technical complexity of the legislation means that very few individuals on the ground who will be most affected will be aware of what is approaching. The key Aboriginal Advisory Group with responsibility for representing communities in the NT is APONT (link here). APONT and its members must certainly be aware of the issues, but appear not to have made any public statement or media release on this issue. Nor have the key members of APONT, the Land Councils and AMSANT. How is it that no Aboriginal advocacy organisation in the NT has raised these issues publicly?

 

Perhaps coincidentally, in the media release announcing the extension of the NP NTRAI the Government announced a grant of $3m to APONT:

Minister for Indigenous Australians Ken Wyatt said $3 million will also be provided to NT Indigenous peak organisations to strengthen their ability to provide advice to Government.

“Putting Aboriginal people at the centre of decision making is a critical part of investments going where they’re needed most,” Minister Wyatt said.

“Building the capacity of Aboriginal Peak Organisations Northern Territory (APO NT) will allow Indigenous Territorians to help guide future investments that benefit and reflect their aspirations.

“This continues our commitment to working in partnership, so Indigenous Australians have a say on the policies and programs which affect them.” [emphasis added]

 

Of course, if one were to interpret funding payments such as this as a form of co-option, it would amount to the Government effectively ensuring that Aboriginal people are at the edges of the decision making over future changes to the key legislated regulatory regimes for alcohol, food security and CLAs and town camps.

 

The rhetoric regarding codesign, Aboriginal decision making and so on means nothing if governments are not prepared to have the issues under consideration dealt with openly and in the public domain. In fact, in the absence of open and transparent processes, claims of codesign are more likely to involve co-option and will inevitably lead to sub-optimal policy outcomes.

 

In the current case, the review of the NP NTRAI should have been released. If there is a similar review of the SFNT Act and the implications of its sunsetting, it should be released. If the Government has taken a decision on its approach to the SFNT sunset provisions, it should announce it. If it hasn’t taken a decision, is should explain why not. If the Opposition parties and the NTG were committed to open public debate, and truly concerned about the quality of life in remote communities, they would have raised these issues before now. If Aboriginal advocacy organisations wish to build trust with their own constituencies, they need to be on the front foot and keep Governments up to the mark.

 

It is worth remembering that in 2007, in the leadup to a federal election, a Commonwealth Government decided that the state of remote communities in the NT was such that it demanded an extraordinary policy intervention including the use of the Australian Defence Force, and a set of draconian and often punitive policy initiatives not seen in generations. Today, a Commonwealth Government, similarly months out from an election, has turned 180 degrees, and decided that policy inaction under the cover of obfuscation and slick political management is what is required.

 

It is also important to remember that exclusionary policy is not some abstract concept. It translates into real and tangible adverse impacts on the lives and life opportunities of Aboriginal families and individuals. If we want good public policy in the Indigenous policy domain, and wish to avoid tumbling headlong into the gaping remote policy chasm we will shortly confront, we all need to do better.