Meta-promises: the new shape of Indigenous policy failure

                                                 

His promises fly so beyond his state

That what he speaks is all in debt; he owes

For every word...

Timon of Athens, Act one, Scene two

 

Following my previous post on ‘Unattainable expectations’ (link here), I received a number of comments from readers that raised issues that I had overlooked, or under-emphasised (though in my defence, I would state that I try to keep this blog focused on policy rather than politics (noting that the distinction is arguably artificial at best).

 

I thought it might be useful to share the comments from two anonymous readers, lightly edited to remove gratuitous comments which might colloquially be described as ‘pissing in my pocket’ along with my response to reader #1. Among the takeouts from these comments are the intensity of the intertwining of politics and policy (something which I tend to under-emphasise) and secondly the explicit and implicit trade-offs and opportunity costs involved in policy development.  I urge readers to read the commentaries both literally, but also through an interpretive lens that points to the complexities inherent in both designing, implementing and (especially from an Indigenous perspective), influencing policy.

 

Reader #1:

Mike is always an incisive commentator, and this blog is no exception - and yet I confess to having some dissatisfaction with elements of it.  In trying to sift my own responses I've had to face the fact that my own strong opinions have to some extent hindered a ready embrace of all Mike's observations.  Strong opinions can often be the enemy of good judgment, but they are also inevitable when one has been so long engaged with these issues.

 

One of the great benefits of my recent overseas sojourn was the opportunity it afforded to escape the exhausting and dispiriting barrage of argument and conjecture that had become almost unbearable when the referendum reached its miserable crescendo.  But now that I am back I must again face up to the issues Mike raises.

 

The complicating opinions of mine that I refer to can be seen as twofold:

Firstly, I harbour a deep anger towards the Prime Minister for the way he conducted the referendum discussions and I hold him primarily responsible for its failure.  His messages were weak and disingenuous and his leadership was an abject failure.  He tried to be Whitlamesque in his election night commitment, but then seemed to think that if he hugged enough people at Garma and whined enough about it being 'a gracious offer from Indigenous people' (what rubbish!) we'd all follow.  It was a shambles and I find it hard to forgive him.

 

And yet I am less inclined than Mike to condemn him for not now rushing to articulate a bold Indigenous policy agenda.  Mike fears that it signifies "a deep-seated lack of  ambition", but I think it is not inappropriate to reflect for a while after the referendum disaster, and that having already significantly raised Indigenous expectations only to have them turn to ashes, he would do well to avoid doing so again without significant pause. As Shakespeare’s words would suggest, this is not a time for more promises. And, as Aunty Pat has said, perhaps the post-referendum wasteland affords opportunity for Indigenous agency to emerge and to flourish.

 

I was really surprised that Mike seemed to make no connection with the Voice in his comments about the problems inherent in suggestions that a particular section of the community might have excessive influence over the development of national policy that directly affects them.  That was precisely a key reason the referendum went down; a lack of clarity as to whether the Parliament would indeed have ultimate control of and responsibility for the policy settings in Indigenous affairs.  The PM did not help with his lame comments about "it would be a brave government that ignored the advice of  the Voice", which raised the obvious question about whether Albo's government would in fact have the bravery Mike and the nation would have wanted it to have.

 

Secondly, I have never been at all comfortable with "closing the gap" rhetoric, which Mike appears to accept without question - (along with Pat, although she, as head of "the Peaks", is structurally locked into accepting that rhetoric).  I find myself wishing that Nugget Coombs were still with us, as I have no doubt he would be calling all this stuff out as being essentially assimilationist.  As one who has had a long and ongoing involvement with remote communities, I find the whole closing the gap agenda to be objectionable - assimilationist, and continuously viewing Aboriginal people and their communities through a negative lens.  Will they never be acceptable until they live like us and think like us?  Perish the thought!

 

My experience of remote community life at its best is that it has a vitality, a joy, an intensity of relationship, and a general exuberance that our own atomised, disconnected, self-obsessed society can never know.  When I first went to [a remote community in the NT] at age 22 I was stunned and amazed that people could live with such laughter and intense connection; it was a revelation.

 

At the risk of appearing foolish, let me put it like this: Perhaps the gap that needs to be closed is that between a society in which loneliness, unhappiness and alienation is an increasing problem and societies in which vitality and connection are a daily reality (yes, along with poverty, boredom and outbursts of violence).  My point is that there is no real gap; it all depends on what we are measuring - and the measurements we currently use are ethnocentric and assimilationist.

 

I like the way Mike finishes his piece by suggesting what Albo might have said, and his penultimate paragraph, articulating a vision for what the referendum could have achieved.  His final paragraph, however, might have said a little more - might have suggested how we actually get beyond the dismal "bipartisan mediocrity' of the last decade.  I'm not sure myself, but I think it might start with a celebration of everything that sets Aboriginal society apart from ours - not its negatives, but its joyous and exuberant connection.

 

Reader #2 provided the following commentary in response to Reader #1: 

Thanks [Reader#1] for copying me into such a thoughtful and considered response. Herewith a few comments on the post and your response from my perspective.

 

Regarding the Prime Minister-in a broader context I believe the whole referendum  campaign was misconceived from the outset. It’s death knell rang from the moment the PM was reduced to tears at its initial launch-political campaigns are only won when strategies are hard headed and identify and manage the risks - neither occurred in this context and wishful thinking abounded. Albanese needs to wear a fair proportion of the blame but when the true story ultimately emerges  there are a number of others who refused to accept,  let alone countenance considered advice.

 

One the key problems is that Labor came into office with only one discernible policy in Indigenous affairs that being the Voice as a miraculous instant cure all for all Indigenous and the nation’s ills. This was partly a product of their poor record in Opposition keeping the Coalition accountable over the past 10 years plus a chronic failure to develop any detailed in depth policies of their own.  As a result they assumed Office and merely maintained a business as usual approach consistent with the policies and structures adopted by the coalition via its 10 year program rather than pursue the necessary systemic reforms required. As Mike highlights this means Indigenous interests are still stuck with Coalition policies and its  government agency structures and the associated short term policy / reactive thinking - most of which continue to have proven disastrous for remote communities in particular.

 

I too have issues with the closing the gap assimilationist rhetoric but as it stands it remains the only remaining show in town- for remote communities it at least opens the door to press  governments to adopt an approach that commits priority resources to those areas of greatest need which are disproportionately in remote Australia -- as it stands the results of the virtual dismembering of programs by previous governments  such as CDEP, remote housing , outstation support and education have been a disaster for remote communities and are all currently on show by way of their virtual abandonment by government and the results and human suffering on display both in towns like Alice and so many remote communities. Other factors such as the negative impacts of social media, modernity and loss of agency in general are all adding other dimensions to this equation. When combined they act together effectively undermine and disrupt / displace traditional culture.

 

I responded to Reader #1 as follows (edited to remove less important points):

Thanks for your considered response!... One of the purposes of my blog is not so much to persuade people to my view, as to persuade them to think harder about the complexity of the policy issues involved, especially related to remote Australia.

 

I have set out some responses below. I do however feel that too much of the public discussion on Indigenous policy is undertaken within rather narrow and informal parameters, and often it is narrow cast to specific cohorts of recipients who do not speak to one another...hence my gratitude for receiving your own well informed and insightful views.

 

I don’t disagree with your assessment of Albanese, however I was pointing to this notion - that I consider to be deeply embedded in the way we think about these issues -  that the world can be split into two separate and cleanly divided parts, Indigenous and non-Indigenous, and hinting or suggesting that it is a key reason why mainstream Australians essentially decided that it was not their business, and they didn’t need to support it...

 

I agree that there shouldn’t be more promises that won’t be kept. And I see the logic in now taking stock following the defeat of a referendum without a plan B...When you are in a hole stop digging...My perspective however is that the whole policy edifice of the government should have been more than just one proposal, and secondly, they might have openly and actively engaged with the community (black and white) about what their policy approach beyond the Voice should be from the date of their election...in short, a smart government avoids the holes in the first place...

 

Your views about closing the gap are extraordinarily relevant, particularly for remote communities, and particularly in relation to the threat of imposed assimilation...moreover, the original closing the gap architecture was not well designed, and the Morrison refresh and current version (done supposedly in partnership with the Peaks) even less well designed...I agree that Nugget would likely be a vehement critic...and it seems that even on its own terms, the closing the gap process is unlikely to work...I do take a different view from you on the utility of a negative lens ... I agree wholeheartedly that Aboriginal communities can exude remarkable positives that are easily overlooked by outsiders and policymakers....unfortunately, a complex and insidious web of grog, drugs, anomie, the onset of modernity, coercive and at times racist policy assumptions, plus a deep-seated lack of inclusion and investment by mainstream institutions has taken a huge toll....many of my blog posts on remote Australia emphasise these negatives not because I see Indigenous society as innately negative or deficient but because a child suffering violent abuse or neglect or FASD or who cannot read and write will not have the opportunities she deserves (many of which include the positive experiences you refer to)...I see policymakers as responsible for these shortcomings, not Indigenous people...

 

[In relation to the suggestion that the gap does not exist] I disagree with you at the margin....there is a gap, but in remote communities it is qualitatively different than in non-remote, and requires different solutions, ideally which involve codesign and partnership with communities themselves....

[In relation to saying more about the policy solutions]...My intuition is that Indigenous interests have to develop an independent advocacy capability and capacity beyond the reach of government co-option.

  

Conclusion

It strikes me that the perspectives of the two readers, each of which have considerable merit, along with my response to reader #1, together demonstrate just how complicated it is to first reach a consensus on what are policy priorities, and second to determine appropriate policy responses across the breadth of the Indigenous policy domain. Yet our public discourse on Indigenous affairs generally, and Indigenous policy in particular, seems quite limited and narrow.

 

There is a deficit in the quality of public discourse on these issues, especially in relation to remote communities. This deficit is not without real world implications: it leads to deep-seated reluctance to address policy complexity in public discourse, and allows simplistic ideas and approaches to gain traction without serious public analysis and critique. This is the ecosystem in which promises are made, expectations raised, and re-raised , and re-raised again, without any government official ever taking responsibility for the absence of tangible action and the concomitant outcomes of legitimate expectations being left unaddressed, and promises breached.

 

While we all have a responsibility (at least in my view) to seek to improve the quality of public discourse on these issues, Ministers in particular have a responsibility to engage with the community at a level of sophistication that is almost entirely absent from public discussion. When was the last time we have seen a minister identify in a spirit of dialogue with the community, potential policy options, rather than making specific promises? We need more of the former and less of the latter. In turn, engaged advocates must increase the demand for greater policy sophistication (particularly in an age of codesign and partnership) if they expect the supply to increase. We have now reached a meta-state in which governments of all shades promise to have a policy, and then fail to deliver.

 

 9 January 2024

Overcoming Indigenous Exclusion

         we know what we are, but know not what we may be.

      Hamlet Act 4, scene 5

Regular readers of this blog will have noted that I have been somewhat derelict in my duty to deliver regular posts. Part of the reason has been that I have been away overseas for an extended period, and only recently returned. Second, I have been preoccupied with finalising a publication seeking to analyse the drivers of high-level policy failure in the Indigenous domain.

That paper, co-authored with Neil Westbury, and titled ‘Overcoming Indigenous exclusion: very hard, plenty humbug’, has just been published on the CAEPR website (link here).  As the quote above suggests, it both analyses the current state of policy in the Indigenous policy domain, and canvasses future options and opportunities for both policymakers and Indigenous interests.

I now hope to resume more regular posting on this blog.

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.