Reconsidering the architecture for closing the gap

 

                                                 Go, tread the path that thou shalt ne’er return.

                                                 Richard III, Act One, scene one.

 

Following the publication of the Productivity Commission’s draft report for its Closing the Gap review (link here), I published a critique arguing for a more wholistic approach to the review. Having already made a submission, I was initially reluctant to make a further submission, but eventually decided I should make the effort to put my views formally to the review.

 

Last week, I submitted a second submission (link here) focussing primarily on the high level problems with the architecture for Closing the Gap, and argued that the Commission should take the opportunity to look beyond the Priority Reforms to the policy architecture generally and the targets in particular. I also attached an appendix outlining one alternative approach to designing the policy architecture for Closing the Gap. My purpose was not to advocate for that specific design, but merely to demonstrate that alternative design approaches are feasible which would address the flaws and gaps in the current policy architecture (which I pointed to in the body of my submission).

 

As it is reasonably short, I include the appendix below, and encourage readers to read the full submission.

 

Appendix A: Outline of one possible alternative framework for closing the gap

 

[This potential framework is included merely to demonstrate that alternative approaches to devising a framework for Closing the Gap are possible.]

 

The first step would be for the Productivity Commission to be requested to make an independently refereed estimate of the potential cost of closing the gap over (say) a fifty year period. This estimate should be indicative, revised every five or ten years, and designed to inform the Australian community of the scale of the challenge involved. Such an estimate should be contextualised with an analysis of the broad causes of existing disadvantage to undercut any suggestion that these are self-inflicted costs or that First Nations citizens are somehow responsible for their disadvantaged status. Such an estimate might be complemented by a revival of the Productivity Commission’s previous Indigenous expenditure reports, albeit better framed to take into account positive and negative expenditures, to differentiate between citizenship entitlements and discretionary investments, and perhaps even broadened to include tax expenditures as well as appropriated expenditures.

 

Core principles of the framework would be that the targets should be high level and address systemic issues, and implicitly acknowledge that deep disadvantage has multiple causes and symptoms.

 

The primary purpose of the targets would be to provide a generalised indication to governments whether or not disadvantage exists and continues. To this end, a limited number of targets would be set based on the availability of reliable data, and their power to communicate a readily understood narrative to the Australian population. To this end, they would generally involve comparisons between Indigenous and non-Indigenous citizens, and may benefit from being aggregated to amalgamate differing data points within each cohort into a single index (e.g. to amalgamate outcomes for education outcomes at different schooling years into a single index). There should be no expectation that Governments should allocate funding to these particular targets.

 

Examples of potential targets include:

•          Comparative lifespans.

•          Comparative educational outcomes.

•          An indicator of comparative geographic disadvantage across urban, regional and remote regions (incorporating physical infrastructure elements such as housing and essential services; and perhaps other core services such as health and education).

•          An indicator of comparative health disadvantage.

•          An indicator of comparative justice system disadvantage.

 

Beneath the high level targets there would be a limited series of high level ten year sectoral priorities linked to the allocation of additional funding locked in to legislated appropriations.  These core priorities would be supplemented by additional priorities locked in to the forward estimates. The priorities and their associated funding would be underpinned by a published policy or program rationale that includes indicators of current comparative socioeconomic status, a program logic and rationale, and links back to the overarching aim of the Closing the Gap agenda, namely, removing comparative disadvantage and inequity. However, there would also be scope for these priorities to encompass initiatives directed to strengthening culture, including for example language programs, support for the various forms of artistic expression, and support for maintaining links to land and country. Stronger cultures strengthen the capabilities that are a core part of citizenship and contribute indirectly (but importantly) to addressing disadvantage. In other words, such a model builds in a tangible mechanism for governments to acknowledge and fund alternative life choices by First Nations citizens.

 

In relation to the ten year sectoral priorities, there would be benefit in requiring these to be agreed Commonwealth /state funding programs which are designed to be additional to current funding initiatives and programs and can be monitored and assessed as a unified strategy.

 

There should be regular independent evaluations of each the sectoral and additional priority programs, with the evaluation reports tabled publicly in Parliament.

 

Additionally, there should be a series of Priority Reforms (such as currently in place) focussed on driving institutional and systemic reforms designed to support and underpin the Closing the Gap policy architecture. These should be framed in qualitative and not quantitative terms, and should be assessed by regular reviews (such as the current review process).

 

Finally, the Commonwealth should take the lead in this national project as the ‘first among equals’, rather than the current model where is sees itself merely as one of nine jurisdictions with responsibility for closing the gap. This would mean that it should take a direct leadership role in ensuring high level consistency in the closing the gap activities of states and territories, and in engaging with the Coalition of Peaks. The Commonwealth should take responsibility for amalgamating performance monitoring and reporting related to the closing the gap architecture across all jurisdictions. It should also provide robust feedback (perhaps through establishing a statutory office) to the states and territories on the quality of their program reports and implementation plans. This would be consistent with the implicit purpose of the 1967 referendum which gave the Commonwealth powers to legislate in relation to Indigenous citizens.