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.
