Ways of Working: The Government’s latest approach to Indigenous policy

 

This earthly world, where to do harm

Is often laudable, to do good, sometime

Accounted dangerous folly.

Macbeth, Act 4, scene 2

 

 

On 15 September 2020, the Minister for Indigenous Australians, Ken Wyatt, delivered a speech that professed to outline the Governments new approach to Indigenous affairs. Its title: Indigenous Australia: A New Way of Working (link here).

 

The speech should be welcomed both for its preparedness to lay out the Government’s vision and approach in the Indigenous policy domain, and because it is one of the few set piece speeches doing so in the seven years since the Coalition came to office in Canberra.

 

Previous speeches by the Minister include an address to the National Press Club in July 2019 titled Walking in Partnership to Effect Change (link here) and the August 2019 Lingiari Lecture (link here).

 

In the Press Club address, less than three months into his tenure as Minister, he stated:

The concept of the voice in the Uluru Statement from the Heart is not just a singular voice, and what I perceive it is - it is a cry to all tiers of Government to stop and listen to the voices of Indigenous Australians at all levels.

 

In relation to Closing the Gap, he stated:

I will work in partnership with state and territory ministers of Indigenous affairs to progress work on the Closing the Gap targets. And identify good practice and to share and celebrate successful programs and jurisdictional achievements.

As ministers, collectively, we have an incredible opportunity to make a difference as leaders of the nation if we work together on targeted priorities such as the high incarceration rates. As I've said, the most important thing that I and the agency will do is to listen - with our ears and our eyes.

 

He went on to make the rhetorically powerful, but somewhat bizarre, statement of his approach going forward:

It's not my intention to develop policy out of my office. But to implement a co-designed process with my ministerial and parliamentary colleagues, relevant departments and with Indigenous communities, organisations and leaders.

 

In the Lingiari Lecture, the Minister argued for truth telling, for Constitutional recognition, and foreshadowed work to establish an Indigenous Voice:

…let me assure you that the Morrison Government is committed to a co-design process so we ensure we have the best possible framework in place to hear those voices at the local, regional and national level.

More will be said in the months to come, and much like Constitutional Recognition, it’s too important to rush, or to get wrong.

 

He also made the case for everyone, not just government, to ‘shift the pendulum’,

There are things that we can be doing, as individuals, as parts of organisations and as members of communities to positively shift the pendulum … We can all shift the pendulum … We owe it to our children, and to future generations to come to create an environment and culture of opportunity and of positivity…

 

The most recent speech, A New Way of Working, starts from the present moment and looks forward. There are few backward glances, let alone considered assessments of the Government’s policy initiatives over its seven years in office.

 

There is no mention of Minister Scullion’s maladministered Indigenous Advancement Strategy (link here). No mention of his revamped and excessively punitive Community Development Program (link here), nor of his failed efforts to improve school attendance in remote regions (link here). Nor of the reasons for, and progress of, the allocation of extra resources to program evaluation along with the ongoing Productivity Commission Inquiry into Indigenous evaluation (link here). No mention of the cuts and subsequent abolition of the Commonwealth’s remote Indigenous housing program (link here). No mention of the ongoing extraordinary incarceration rates impacting Indigenous Australians (link here), nor of the continuing disaster of out of home care for Indigenous children (link here). No mention of the Productivity Commission’s unimplemented recommendations on funding of children’s services in the NT (link here). No mention of the failure of the Government to initiate meaningful reform in the area of native title (link here). No mention of the Government’s failure to meaningfully fund the entities established by the Native Title Act, Prescribed Bodies Corporate or PBCs, to ensure that land management functions formerly undertaken by the Crown can be undertaken by native title holders over vast swathes of the Australian landmass (link here). No mention of the failure of the Commonwealth to utilise its Heritage Protection legislation to protect the Jukaan Cave from destruction (link here). No mention of the failure of the Commonwealth to publish let alone implement the still confidential recommendations of the Indigenous Reference Group established to advance the Indigenous policy agenda of the Government’s 2015 White Paper on Northern Development (link here).

 

Nor is there mention of perhaps the most successful program in remote Australia, the Indigenous Ranger Program that funds (as of 2018) 123 ranger groups and 839 (full time equivalent) locally engaged Indigenous rangers to work on country (link here). The Government announced earlier this year that it was committing $102m per annum to extend this program through to 2028 (link here). Perhaps the silence is because this is a program that deserves to be expanded by a factor of ten.

 

But success is noted, indeed, celebrated. The passage of a technical amendment to the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976 to fine-tune the arrangements made in 2013 for the return of the Jabiru township to Aboriginal ownership is ‘real progress’ empowering the Mirarr people to transform Jabiru from a mining town to a tourism destination.

 

I have focussed on the absence of retrospective appraisal to make the point that the impetus for the ‘new way of working’ does not appear to be due to a fundamental reassessment of the Government’s underlying policy and program approaches over the past seven years.

 

Indeed, many of the themes in the Minister’s latest speech replicate themes included in his earlier speeches summarised above. The Minister emphasises the overarching importance of hearing Indigenous voices at all levels. He talks again about codesign of policies and programs. He reasserts his intention not to make policy unilaterally (although the fact that he hasn’t shared publicly the Cabinet submissions he considers each week as a Cabinet Minister in the Government suggest we shouldn’t take the assertion too literally):

I said when I took on this portfolio that policy would not be made in my office. But it would be made with Indigenous Australians right across the country. And we are staying true to this commitment … we are partnering with Indigenous Australians and giving them an opportunity to inform and shape their own future.

 

But he isn’t prepared to rush reform, and emphasises twice the need for Indigenous citizens to be patient:

Genuine co-design takes time, trust and respect.

And

If we want to empower through shared decision making, if we want to ensure joint accountability and equal responsibility for outcomes we need to challenge the structures and institutions that have prevailed in our way of thinking for so long. This is a fundamental shift that will take time and require courage.

 

This policy of hastening slowly mirrors the arguments in his Press Club speech that constitutional recognition would take time and should not be rushed, and in his Lingiari Address that both constitutional recognition and the Indigenous Voice are too important to be rushed.

 

The core message in A New Way of Working is laid out early in the speech:

For decades we have strived to close the gap – to banish Indigenous disadvantage to the history books. We have made modest gains in some areas, but for far too many Indigenous Australians we have fallen behind.

This isn’t through lack of good will and intention. This isn’t through lack of funding and programmes. I would argue that many of the resources are there – but what we have always struggled with is the failure to realise sustained and improved change.

Therefore, what is the most pressing issue before us when we look at how to approach Indigenous affairs? For me, it’s ensuring that the next generation of Indigenous Australians aren’t framed by disadvantage – but by opportunity.

Social opportunity. Economic opportunity. Corporate Opportunity.

This is why we need a new way of working with Indigenous Australians.

 

This focus on pursuing and grasping opportunity is framed as an objective that is the responsibility of individuals and that governments can only facilitate.

 

The sleight of hand here is to create a false binary between government policy and programs and individual responsibility. The Minister is making the case for less government, less policy, and less funding. The mechanism that he is constructing to mediate individual aspirations and responsibility is a notional, all-encompassing, heterogeneous, and innately diffuse Indigenous Voice:

If we are failing to ensure adequate living conditions for some of our most vulnerable Australians then simply put – we are failing to hear their voices. That’s why we are developing an Indigenous voice.

It’s more than a voice to Parliament, and more than a voice to government. [emphasis added]

It is an acknowledgment that at a local level right through to our nation’s capital - the views of Indigenous Australians matter. It will be a voice for the youngest Indigenous Australian through to our Elders, Traditional Owners and Leaders. It is empowerment.

 

Two pillars support this framing. First is an impassioned plea for Indigenous economic development:

We need to continue to unlock the economic potential right across this nation ….This is key to ensuring lasting prosperity, and key to transforming communities and ensuring that they are able to take advantage of emerging opportunities in industry to create meaningful long-term jobs …. Empowering them to realise their economic potential.

 

The second pillar is an argument that conceptualises the role of government — in this new world of ‘shared responsibility’ that extends beyond governments to all Indigenous citizens — as not being to increase current efforts to directly engage in improving economic status, or reducing disadvantage, or addressing the social determinants of poor health. After all, as the Minister asserts, lack of progress ‘isn’t through lack of funding and programmes’. Rather, the role of government is to create opportunity:

…it’s our task to create the environment to realise their dreams and ambitions. That is the role of government – one that empowers, allows self-determination and supports enterprise. This is government saying we trust Indigenous Australians to make decisions that will lead to improved outcomes.

 

Of course, there is a place for governments to facilitate opportunity, but not to the exclusion of the core tasks of government: funding and delivering basic services; responding to the legitimate aspirations of citizens, and working to create a society built on institutions and social structures that are in the public interest.

 

If my reading of the Ministers speech is correct, this is indeed a far-reaching policy agenda. It is not new, but is arguably a sharper and more overt justification and rationale for what has effectively been the Coalition Government Indigenous policy settings since it came to office. It implicitly seeks to justify policy inaction, shifting policy and funding responsibilities to the states and territories wherever possible, the substantial budget reductions and policy reversals since 2013, and the failure to step up and substantively address the investment implications of sustained disadvantage. Most importantly, it appears to implicitly seek to justify ongoing social and political structural exclusion through the use of rhetorical tropes designed to resonate with Indigenous citizens: self-determination, empowerment, and listening to as yet unheard voices.

 

Governments are elected to govern, and they should be prepared to provide open and transparent explanations of their policies.

 

When governments claim everyone is responsible, or accountable, or to be heard, then no-one is responsible, accountable or heard. Governments are elected to make choices — that is what policy is all about — not to invent and promulgate rhetorical rationales for not making them.

 

Accordingly, rhetoric such as this:

From the Prime Minister, through to all of my Cabinet Colleagues, we all share the responsibility to realise a better future for Indigenous Australians – we are all Ministers for Indigenous Australians – and through our new approach we will realise improved employment, education and health outcomes.

And we share this responsibility with every Indigenous Australian – we welcome their input, ideas and visions...

should be seen for what it is: an abrogation of responsibility, and a cynical exercise in raising expectations that will inevitably be dashed.

 

Finally, the Minister’s recent speech descends into a vortex of seemingly politically inspired inconsistency, defending public debate, but criticising those who protest; criticising lateral violence (which I take to mean ad hominem criticism of Indigenous citizens by other indigenous citizens), but then criticising ‘the left’ :

To achieve real progress we also need honest debate. Debate that is unencumbered by partisan positions that show little respect for the matter at hand.

For far too long our people have been subject to lateral violence, which compounds systemic racism experienced by some in our community. Perpetrated from within. Perpetrated by those claiming to help our people. And most viciously by those on the Left.

 

It is not clear what the Minister is seeking to achieve with these comments, and by also citing (in text I have not included here) an associated list of epithets thrown at him by unnamed Indigenous critics. It reads as an attempt to pre-emptively take out insurance against potential critics. And seems to suggest an overly partisan perspective on the world.

 

There is a place for partisan politics, but in my (perhaps old fashioned) view, not in a major policy speech which normally seeks to make a persuasive case that the Government’s policy approach is directed to advancing the broader public interest.

 

The bottom line is that the Government is seven years into its tenure, and may well be on track to stay in office for another seven years.

 

My summary analysis is that under the previous Minister (Scullion), the policy framework in Indigenous affairs was essentially to reverse pre-existing policies that challenged the Government’s ideological perspectives, but resist or defer any proposals for institutional change, particularly if they involve new expenditure. But most importantly, the core tactic was to keep shifting position on the cynical but largely correct assumption that a moving target will avoid the day of reckoning. There is no better example of this than the myriad obfuscations and shifting stances by Minister Scullion on the question of renewing the national partnership on remote housing, documented extensively in previous posts on this Blog (link here).

 

The current Minister, 16 months into his tenure, appears to be adopting a similar policy approach. It will not work at a substantive level to improve the wellbeing of disadvantaged Indigenous citizens. And the longer the Government is in office, the ploy of presenting a moving target will become less effective.

 

Consider the two most salient examples: the recent National Agreement on Closing the Gap (link here) and the proposed Indigenous Voice (link here).

 

The recent National Agreement on Closing the Gap reflects a determined and arguably successful push by the Commonwealth (link here) to reframe the narrative on Closing the Gap from one of Commonwealth failure to one where the states are primarily responsible for meeting renewed targets. The Commonwealth and the states have committed to an ambitious structural reform agenda built around ongoing policy engagement with the Coalition of Peaks, but the hard work both on targets and on structural reform has been pushed into the future, while the political narrative for the Government will change immediately. And so far at least, all without the necessary extra investment towards meeting those less than ambitious targets.

 

The proposed Indigenous Voice, since 2017 when the Uluru Statement for the Heart put forward an Indigenous initiated proposal for a Voice to Parliament to be entrenched in the Constitution, the Government’s public stance has meandered through three manifestations. First, it was a straight-out ‘no’ to a voice to parliament, and a ‘no’ to constitutional entrenchment. Then it shifted to acceptance of a voice to government (not parliament), but not to entrenchment. And finally to the latest formulation, a voice that ‘is more than a voice to parliament and a voice to government’, based on a process of ‘codesign’  involving three committees, government appointed members, an opaque process, limited terms of reference, and no apparent timeline for a final government decision.

 

There is something Orwellian about a new way of working that revolves around the assertion that the views of Indigenous citizens at all levels matter, but that refuses — under the guise of running a flawed and convoluted codesign process — to implement a proposal for an Indigenous Voice with extensive Indigenous input and wide support. A way of working that actively seeks to shift policy and funding responsibilities to the states and territories, as if the 1967 referendum allocating legislative powers to the Commonwealth is a dead letter. A way of working that seeks to persuade Indigenous Australians that the primary role of government is to create opportunity, with the unstated implication that continuing Indigenous disadvantage or exclusion is a failure by Indigenous citizens to grasp the opportunities provided. A way of working that purports to take responsibility (‘we are all Ministers for Indigenous Australians’) but in reality avoids the admittedly hard decisions required to address ongoing Indigenous exclusion.

 

 

 

 

Disclosure: Given the topic of this post, it is appropriate that I remind readers that while I have never been a member of a political party, I was a former adviser to Minister Jenny Macklin from 2008 to 2010.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Indigenous Incarceration Update: uncomfortable politics

Uncomfortable time, why camest thou now?

Romeo & Juliet Act 4, scene 5

Indigenous incarceration has been in the news for the last week or so, driven by the upswell in concern internationally of the treatment of African Americans by that nation’s police forces. There have been numerous articles in the media (link here to just one of many) , and the media pressure has led the Federal Minister for Indigenous Australians to issue a statement (link here).

The Minister’s statement is replete with platitudes and rhetoric, and lacks any commitment to new action apart from the suggestion that the refreshed Closing the Gap targets developed in partnership with First Nations interests would include an as yet unspecified target. I recommend readers examine it closely for themselves.

In particular, what is missing is any direct reference to the reform agenda provided by the Australian Law Reform Commission’s 2016 Inquiry into the Incarceration Rates of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander People, initiated at the request of the current Government, and undertaken by Judge Matthew Myers, the first Indigenous judge appointed to the Federal Court.

My April 2020 post (link here) on the lack of implementation commitment and action by the present Government on this issue is a stark reminder of what is at stake. As I stated in that post (do read the full post):

What is crystal clear is that two years on, the Australian government as well as the states and territories who are primarily responsible for our criminal justice systems have done absolutely nothing.

In his approach to this issue, the Minister for Indigenous Australians (I use his title advisedly) is trying to walk astride a barbed wire fence, one leg on the side of Indigenous Australians, the other leg on the side of a Government determined to manage the issue rather than address its substantive and underlying causes. He must be feeling rather uncomfortable.

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.