DOCSLIB.ORG

Outcomes for Indigenous Australians — the Current Situation

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Outcomes for Indigenous Australians — the Current Situation 2 Outcomes for Indigenous Australians — the current situation Robert Fitzgerald1 Abstract While the majority of Indigenous Australians lead productive, successful and rewarding lives, on average, Indigenous Australians remain significantly disadvantaged compared with other Australians across a wide range of socio-economic indicators. Some outcomes for Indigenous Australians are improving, particularly in education and economic participation, but other outcomes are stagnating or even deteriorating. Governments in Australia spend $25 billion annually on services for Indigenous Australians. While much of this expenditure is on mainstream services used by all Australians, some specifically addresses Indigenous disadvantage. Ensuring that expenditure aimed at ‘closing the gap’ for Indigenous Australians is effective and efficient requires good evaluation. There are lessons to be learnt about the success factors that underpin effective programs from the ‘things that work’ case studies identified in the Overcoming Indigenous Disadvantage reports, but the value of these is often limited by a lack of rigorous evaluation. 2.1 Introduction This paper draws on results from four streams of performance reporting work by the Productivity Commission, in its role as secretariat to the Steering Committee for the Review of Government Service Provision: • Overcoming Indigenous Disadvantage: Key Indicators (OID report) (SCRGSP 2011b) • Indigenous Expenditure Report (SCRGSP 2012a) • Report on Government Services: Indigenous Compendium (SCRGSP 2012b) 1 Commissioner, Productivity Commission and Convenor, Overcoming Indigenous Disadvantage Working Group and Indigenous Expenditure Report Working Group, Steering Committee for the Review of Government Service Provision. OUTCOMES FOR 21 INDIGENOUS AUSTRALIANS • National Indigenous Reform Agreement: Performance Information reports (SCRGSP 2011a). This paper provides background information on the Indigenous population in Australia, describes the OID report’s background and strategic framework of outcome indicators, and presents data on outcomes for Indigenous people across several key themes: • remoteness • economic outcomes • health • education • safe and supportive communities • service delivery and governance. 2.2 The Indigenous population in Australia In this paper, the term ‘Indigenous Australians’ is used to refer to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians. In 2006,2 90 per cent of the estimated Indigenous population were of Aboriginal origin only, 6 per cent were of Torres Strait Islander origin only and 4 per cent were of both origins. Box 2.1 summarises some information about Australia’s Indigenous population. On average, Indigenous Australians are younger than other Australians, and a higher proportion of Indigenous Australians live in remote and very remote areas. 2 Separate population estimates for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people for 2011 have not yet been published by the Australian Bureau of Statistics. 22 BETTER INDIGENOUS POLICIES: THE ROLE OF EVALUATION Box 2.1 How many people? In 2011, the estimated resident Indigenous population of Australia was 670 000 people, out of a total population of 22.3 million people (3 per cent of the Australian population). The Indigenous population has a young age profile — in 2011, 36 per cent of Indigenous Australians were aged 14 years or under, compared with 18 per cent of the non-Indigenous population. Using 2011 census data, a higher proportion of both the Indigenous and non-Indigenous populations lived in New South Wales than other States and Territories (31 per cent and 32 per cent respectively). In contrast, 10 per cent of the national Indigenous population lived in the Northern Territory, but less than 1 per cent of the non-Indigenous population lived there. Proportion of the Australian population, by State and Territory, 2011 Indigenous Non-Indigenous Tas NT SA NT Tas 4% 10% NSW 7% 1% 2% SA 31% WA NSW 6% 10% 32% ACT WA 2% 13% ACT Vic Qld 1% 7% Qld 20% Vic 28% 25% Seventy-five per cent of Indigenous Australians lived in major cities or regional areas in 20063 (32 per cent in major cities, 21 per cent in inner regional areas and 22 per cent in outer regional areas). Nine per cent lived in remote areas and 15 per cent lived in very remote areas. Proportion of the Australian population by remoteness area, 2006 Indigenous Non-Indigenous Remote Very Very Major Outer 1% remote remote cities regional 15% 9% <1% Remote 32% 9% Inner regional 20% Major cities Outer 69% regional Inner 22% regional 21% Data sources: ABS (2008); ABS (2012a). While a number of dimensions of disadvantage increase with geographic remoteness, many Indigenous Australians in urban settings also face significant disadvantage, when compared with other Australians living in the same areas. 3 Population data by remoteness areas for 2011 are yet to be published by the Australian Bureau of Statistics. OUTCOMES FOR 23 INDIGENOUS AUSTRALIANS 2.3 The Steering Committee’s role in Indigenous reporting Overcoming Indigenous Disadvantage report In April 2002, the Council of Australian Governments (COAG) commissioned the Steering Committee to produce a regular report against key indicators of Indigenous disadvantage. The OID report has an important long-term objective — to inform Australian governments and Indigenous people about whether policy programs and interventions are collectively achieving positive outcomes for Indigenous people. In turn, this information can help identify where further work is needed. The latest edition of the report was released on 25 August 2011. Previous editions were published in 2003, 2005, 2007 and 2009. National Indigenous Reform Agreement In December 2007, COAG identified Indigenous policy as one of seven priority areas of national reform. COAG set six high-level targets for closing the gaps in Indigenous outcomes, and identified seven ‘building blocks’ that underpinned a National Indigenous Reform Agreement (NIRA) (COAG 2011). The NIRA sets out governments’ agreed objectives and outcomes, and clarifies the respective roles and responsibilities of the Commonwealth and the States and Territories in the delivery of services. The NIRA contains the COAG targets and a number of other performance indicators. The performance of all governments against the targets and indicators is assessed by the COAG Reform Council (CRC). The Steering Committee collates the NIRA performance information for analysis by the CRC. The CRC has published three reports assessing progress against the NIRA, in 2010, 2011 and 2012. Indigenous Expenditure Report In December 2007, COAG committed to reporting on expenditure on services to Indigenous Australians, to inform better understanding of the level and patterns of expenditure. The first Indigenous Expenditure Report (IER) was published in 2010 and, in 2011, COAG transferred responsibility for future reports to the Steering Committee. A second report was published in 2012. The IER provides estimates of expenditure by the Australian Government and State and Territory governments on Indigenous specific services and the estimated 24 BETTER INDIGENOUS POLICIES: THE ROLE OF EVALUATION Indigenous share of mainstream services. Expenditure is reported across 86 categories, mapped to the OID and NIRA building blocks. In the 2012 IER, total direct government expenditure on services to Indigenous Australians was estimated to be $25.4 billion in 2010–11, accounting for 5.6 per cent of total direct general government expenditure. Indigenous Australians made up 2.6 per cent of the population. Estimated expenditure per head of population was $44 128 for Indigenous Australians, compared with $19 589 for other Australians (a ratio of 2.25 to 1). The $24 538 per person difference reflected the combined effects of: • greater intensity of service use ($16 109 or 66 per cent) — Indigenous Australians use more services per capita because of greater need, and because of population characteristics such as the younger age profile of the Indigenous population • additional cost of providing services ($8429 or 34 per cent) — it can cost more to provide services to Indigenous Australians if mainstream services are more expensive to provide (for example, because of location), or if Indigenous Australians receive targeted services (for example, Indigenous liaison officers in hospitals) in addition to mainstream services (SCRGSP 2012a). The estimates in the IER provide information relevant to a number of key policy questions. • How much did government spend on key services? • How much was spent on Indigenous Australians and how does this compare with expenditure on other Australians? • What were the patterns of service use by Indigenous Australians and how do these compare with service use by other Australians? • What drove the differences in expenditure between Indigenous and other Australians? However, the estimates in the IER on their own cannot answer questions about the adequacy, effectiveness and efficiency of government expenditure on services for Indigenous Australians. This requires more targeted evaluation, combining information on expenditure with information on the level of need and the performance of services. OUTCOMES FOR 25 INDIGENOUS AUSTRALIANS Report on Government Services: Indigenous Compendium Heads of government (now COAG) commissioned the annual Report on Government Services (RoGS) to provide information on the equity, efficiency and effectiveness of government services. For a number of years, the Steering Committee has devoted
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Government and Indigenous Australians Exclusionary Values
    Government and Indigenous Australians Exclusionary values upheld in Australian Government continue to unjustly prohibit the participation of minority population groups. Indigenous people “are among the most socially excluded in Australia” with only 2.2% of Federal parliament comprised of Aboriginal’s. Additionally, Aboriginal culture and values, “can be hard for non-Indigenous people to understand” but are critical for creating socially inclusive policy. This exclusion from parliament is largely as a result of a “cultural and ethnic default in leadership” and exclusionary values held by Australian parliament. Furthermore, Indigenous values of autonomy, community and respect for elders is not supported by the current structure of government. The lack of cohesion between Western Parliamentary values and Indigenous cultural values has contributed to historically low voter participation and political representation in parliament. Additionally, the historical exclusion, restrictive Western cultural norms and the continuing lack of consideration for the cultural values and unique circumstances of Indigenous Australians, vital to promote equity and remedy problems that exist within Aboriginal communities, continue to be overlooked. Current political processes make it difficult for Indigenous people to have power over decisions made on their behalf to solve issues prevalent in Aboriginal communities. This is largely as “Aboriginal representatives are in a better position to represent Aboriginal people and that existing politicians do not or cannot perform this role.” Deeply “entrenched inequality in Australia” has led to the continuity of traditional Anglo- Australian Parliamentary values, which inherently exclude Indigenous Australians. Additionally, the communication between the White Australian population and the Aboriginal population remains damaged, due to “European contact tend[ing] to undermine Aboriginal laws, society, culture and religion”.
    [Show full text]
  • South Australian State Public Sector Organisations
    South Australian state public sector organisations The entities listed below are controlled by the government. The sectors to which these entities belong are based on the date of the release of the 2016–17 State Budget. The government’s interest in each of the public non-financial corporations and public financial corporations listed below is 100 per cent. Public Public General Non-Financial Financial Government Corporations Corporations Sector Sector Sector Adelaide Cemeteries Authority * Adelaide Festival Centre Trust * Adelaide Festival Corporation * Adelaide Film Festival * Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges Natural Resources * Management Board Adelaide Venue Management Corporation * Alinytjara Wilurara Natural Resources Management Board * Art Gallery Board, The * Attorney-General’s Department * Auditor-General’s Department * Australian Children’s Performing Arts Company * (trading as Windmill Performing Arts) Bio Innovation SA * Botanic Gardens State Herbarium, Board of * Carrick Hill Trust * Coast Protection Board * Communities and Social Inclusion, Department for * Correctional Services, Department for * Courts Administration Authority * CTP Regulator * Dairy Authority of South Australia * Defence SA * Distribution Lessor Corporation * Dog and Cat Management Board * Dog Fence Board * Education Adelaide * Education and Child Development, Department for * Electoral Commission of South Australia * Environment, Water and Natural Resources, Department of * Environment Protection Authority * Essential Services Commission of South Australia
    [Show full text]
  • Tasmania (TAS)
    Australian Red Cross 26.05.21 COVID-19 Information Sheet – Tasmania (TAS) Disclaimer: The information below should not be considered an exhaustive list and service delivery may change. Please contact organisations and services directly for the most up to date information and to enquire further about eligibility. Red Cross does not determine eligibility for the third party services listed. Government of Tasmania Updates • Tasmanian Government COVID-19 Updates o Tasmanian border restrictions and subsequent quarantine arrangements are classified as low, medium and high. To check the classification of a location visit the Tasmanian government’s coronavirus website. These classifications change depending on the COVID-19 situation in each state and territory. • COVID-19 vaccinations: The Tasmanian and the Australian Governments are working together to give safe COVID-19 vaccinations to the community. Vaccines are being delivered in phases. All Tasmanians aged 18 and over will be able to get vaccinated for free. More information is available on the Tasmanian government website. • Support for Temporary Visa Holders: • Pandemic Isolation Assistance Grants are available to support low-income persons, casual workers and self-employed persons who are required to self-isolate due to COVID-19 risk. To apply, please call the Public Health Hotline on 1800 671 738. • The Rapid Response Skills Initiative provides funding of up to $3,000 towards the cost of training for people who have lost their jobs because they have been made redundant, the place they
    [Show full text]
  • Voting in AUSTRALIAAUSTRALIA Contents
    Voting IN AUSTRALIAAUSTRALIA Contents Your vote, your voice 1 Government in Australia: a brief history 2 The federal Parliament 5 Three levels of government in Australia 8 Federal elections 9 Electorates 10 Getting ready to vote 12 Election day 13 Completing a ballot paper 14 Election results 16 Changing the Australian Constitution 20 Active citizenship 22 Your vote, your voice In Australia, citizens have the right and responsibility to choose their representatives in the federal Parliament by voting at elections. The representatives elected to federal Parliament make decisions that affect many aspects of Australian life including tax, marriage, the environment, trade and immigration. This publication explains how Australia’s electoral system works. It will help you understand Australia’s system of government, and the important role you play in it. This information is provided by the Australian Electoral Commission (AEC), an independent statutory authority. The AEC provides Australians with an independent electoral service and educational resources to assist citizens to understand and participate in the electoral process. 1 Government in Australia: a brief history For tens of thousands of years, the heart of governance for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples was in their culture. While traditional systems of laws, customs, rules and codes of conduct have changed over time, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples continue to share many common cultural values and traditions to organise themselves and connect with each other. Despite their great diversity, all Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities value connection to ‘Country’. This includes spirituality, ceremony, art and dance, family connections, kin relationships, mutual responsibility, sharing resources, respecting law and the authority of elders, and, in particular, the role of Traditional Owners in making decisions.
    [Show full text]
  • Australia's System of Government
    61 Australia’s system of government Australia is a federation, a constitutional monarchy and a parliamentary democracy. This means that Australia: Has a Queen, who resides in the United Kingdom and is represented in Australia by a Governor-General. Is governed by a ministry headed by the Prime Minister. Has a two-chamber Commonwealth Parliament to make laws. A government, led by the Prime Minister, which must have a majority of seats in the House of Representatives. Has eight State and Territory Parliaments. This model of government is often referred to as the Westminster System, because it derives from the United Kingdom parliament at Westminster. A Federation of States Australia is a federation of six states, each of which was until 1901 a separate British colony. The states – New South Wales, Victoria, Queensland, Western Australia, South Australia and Tasmania - each have their own governments, which in most respects are very similar to those of the federal government. Each state has a Governor, with a Premier as head of government. Each state also has a two-chambered Parliament, except Queensland which has had only one chamber since 1921. There are also two self-governing territories: the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory. The federal government has no power to override the decisions of state governments except in accordance with the federal Constitution, but it can and does exercise that power over territories. A Constitutional Monarchy Australia is an independent nation, but it shares a monarchy with the United Kingdom and many other countries, including Canada and New Zealand. The Queen is the head of the Commonwealth of Australia, but with her powers delegated to the Governor-General by the Constitution.
    [Show full text]
  • Whole of Victorian Government Response to the Final Report of The
    Whole of Victorian Government Response to the Final Report of the Economic Development and Infrastructure Committee’s Inquiry into Improving Access to Victorian Public Sector Information and Data _________________________________________________________ © Government of Victoria This report is protected by copyright. Apart from any use permitted under the Copyright Act 1968, and those explicitly granted below, all other rights are reserved. Except for the Victorian Government logo and except where otherwise stated the Whole of Victorian Government Response to the Final Report of the Economic Development and Infrastructure Committee’s Inquiry into Improving Access to Victorian Public Sector Information and Data by Victorian Government is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 2.5 Australia Licence (the Licence). Except where otherwise noted, any reference to, or reuse or distribution of all or part of this work must include the following attribution: Whole of Victorian Government Response to the Final Report of the Economic Development and Infrastructure Committee’s Inquiry into Improving Access to Victorian Public Sector Information and Data © Government of Victoria, 2009. http://www.diird.vic.gov.au/diird-projects/access-to-public-sector-information You must provide the following link in any further reuse or distribution of this work to make clear to others that the Licence (including this copyright notice) applies to this work: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/2.5/au/ Any of the above
    [Show full text]
  • Tasmanian Government Submissions to Inquiries and Reviews PRINCIPLES
    Tasmanian Government Submissions to Inquiries and Reviews PRINCIPLES Preparing a Tasmanian Government submission to an Inquiry or Review can require significant resources. It may present an important opportunity to influence policies or strategies in areas significant to the State. These principles provide a common framework for departments to consider when assessing whether to prepare a Tasmanian Government submission. This should be read in conjunction with the associated ‘Process’ document. The two documents are designed to assist departments to work together and apply a consistent approach to Inquiries and Reviews. Definition and coverage These principles should be used to assess all Inquiries, Reviews and calls for submissions undertaken by: Tasmanian statutory or Parliamentary committees; Australian Government departments and statutory bodies, the Commonwealth Parliament, various Commissions or special Inquiries; and non-government organisations or international bodies. Exclusions: Matters related to international treaties entered into by the Australian Government, and Commonwealth-State Agreements – these have their own processes (available at www.dpac.tas.gov.au/divisions/policy/intergovernmental_relations). Although the principles should always be applied, the associated process will not apply in all cases. See the ‘Process’ document for relevant exemptions. How to use these principles The principles must be weighed against each other to assess whether a submission is justified. Sometimes only one principle will be satisfied but it will be significant enough to justify making a submission. In other cases, multiple principles may be satisfied, but to an insufficient degree to justify the diversion of resources to prepare a submission. Senior departmental officials are expected to use professional judgment in applying these Principles, and to consult central agency officials where there are queries or concerns about the application of the Principles.
    [Show full text]
  • Submission by the Human Rights Council of Australia Inc. to The
    Submission by the Human Rights Council of Australia Inc. to the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee Inquiry into Nationhood, National Identity and Democracy Abstract This submission argues that it is critical for community cohesion and in respect of observance of international human rights to recognise and address the racist elements present in the movements described as “populist, conservative nationalist and nativist” which the inquiry addresses. These elements include the promotion of concepts of "white nationalism" which are largely imported from North America and Europe. Racist movements adopt sophisticated recruitment and radicalisation techniques similar to those seen among jihadists. Hate speech requires a strengthened national response and we recommend that its most extreme forms be criminalised in federal law, taking into account relevant human rights principles. A comprehensive annual report is required to ensure that key decision makers including parliamentarians are well-informed about the characteristics and methods of extremist actors. Further, noting the openly racist call for a return of the “White Australia” policy by a former parliamentarian, a Parliamentary Code of Ethics, which previous inquiries have recommended, is now essential. The immigration discourse is particularly burdened with implicit (and sometimes explicit) racist messaging. It is essential that an evidence base be developed to remove racist effects from immigration and other national debates. International human rights are a purpose-designed response to racism and racist nationalism. They embody the learned experience of the postwar generation. Human rights need to be drawn on more systematically to promote community cohesion and counter hate. Community cohesion and many Australians would be significantly harmed by any return to concepts of an ethnically or racially defined “nation”.
    [Show full text]
  • Parliament's Power of the Purse Has Traditionally Been Based On
    MODERN BUDGET REFORM AND THE IMPACT ON PARLIAMENTS THE AUSTRALIAN EXPERIENCE Christine McDonald Secretary Senate Finance and Public Administration Committee 27 February 2009 Modern Budget Reform and the Impact on Parliaments The Australian Experience The transparency and accountability of Commonwealth public funding and expenditure is right at the heart of parliamentary life. Those who understand the history of parliaments know that this is the battlefield on which hundreds and thousands of people have lost their lives. It is about the right of people to determine how they are to be taxed and how that taxation is to be spent by those who govern them. The fact that the history of striving for good government goes back centuries and is steeped in blood should remind us that, as dull as this may seem to those who seek other pastures of interest, this is material which goes right to the very heart of our parliamentary function. Senator Andrew Murray, 2007.1 The purpose of this paper is to examine the impact of budget reform in Australia on the accountability of the executive government to the Parliament and to identify the measures by which the Australian Senate seeks to improve its oversight of budgetary processes. The Australian Parliament The Australian Parliament has two elected houses: the Senate and the House of Representatives. The majority party in the House of Representatives forms the government. The Senate consists of 76 Senators elected to represent the six States and two Territories. The government of the day does not always hold the majority in the Senate: currently, the Senate is composed of 32 government Senators and 44 non-government Senators (37 Liberal/National Party Coalition, five Australian Greens, one Family First Party and one independent).
    [Show full text]
  • Interim Report: Inquiry Into the Queensland Government's Health
    Interim Report: Inquiry into the Queensland Government’s health response to COVID‐19 Report No. 43, 56th Parliament Health, Communities, Disability Services and Domestic and Family Violence Prevention Committee September 2020 Health, Communities, Disability Services and Domestic and Family Violence Prevention Committee Chair Mr Aaron Harper MP, Member for Thuringowa Deputy Chair Mr Mark McArdle MP, Member for Caloundra Members Mr Michael Berkman MP, Member for Maiwar Mr Martin Hunt MP, Member for Nicklin Mr Barry O’Rourke MP, Member for Rockhampton Ms Joan Pease MP, Member for Lytton Committee Secretariat Telephone +61 7 3553 6626 Fax +61 7 3553 6699 Email [email protected] Committee Web Page www.parliament.qld.gov.au/Health Acknowledgements The committee acknowledges the inquiry assistance provided by departments and agencies of the Queensland Government and by the Queensland Parliamentary Library and Research Service, together with the contributions of the various organisations and other stakeholders who submitted or provided evidence to the committee’s inquiry. Interim Report: Inquiry into the Queensland Government’s health response to COVID-19 Contents Abbreviations iii Chair’s foreword vi Recommendations viii 1 Introduction 1 1.1 Role of the committee 1 1.2 Inquiry referral 1 1.3 Inquiry process 2 1.4 Interim report 2 2 Novel coronavirus with pandemic potential 3 2.1 Identification and emergence of COVID-19 3 2.1.1 Symptoms and spread of COVID-19 4 2.1.2 Initial modelling of COVID-19 6 2.2 Preparedness planning: Protecting
    [Show full text]
  • Australian Government Response to the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs Report
    AUSTRALIAN GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES STANDING COMMITTEE ON ABORIGINAL AND TORRES STRAIT ISLANDER AFFAIRS REPORT: OUR LAND OUR LANGUAGES - LANGUAGE LEARNING IN INDIGENOUS COMMUNITIES June 2013 1 Australian Government response to the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs report: Our Land Our Languages: Language Learning in Indigenous Communities This is the Australian Government’s response to the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs Inquiry into language learning in Indigenous communities, the Our Land Our Languages report, as tabled on 17 September 2012. The Government acknowledges the importance of the committee’s research into language learning in Indigenous communities, and the value of its findings on contributing to the maintenance, transmission and revitalisation of Indigenous languages into the future. The report highlights that languages are the foundation upon which the capacity to learn and interact productively with other people is built and that the use of Indigenous languages can assist in improving educational, vocational and economic outcomes for Aboriginals and Torres Strait Islanders. As stated in the report, greater recognition of Indigenous languages will have a positive impact on slowing their rapid decline in active usage, as well as improving self-esteem and identity of Indigenous Australians, assisting in all areas of closing the gap on Indigenous disadvantage and improving reconciliation outcomes. The recently released National Cultural Policy - Creative Australia recognises the central role Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander cultures have in our national life. The Government has demonstrated its commitment to preserving this culture through providing an additional $13.983 million over four years as an extension of the Indigenous Languages Support program.
    [Show full text]
  • 3. Indigenous Disadvantage and Self-Determination
    3. Indigenous disadvantage and self-determination This issue relates to questions 4 and 5 of the List of issues to be taken up in connection with the consideration of the third and fourth reports of Australia Summary of issue · Indigenous people In Australia, suffer grossly disproportionate rates of disadvantage against all measures of socio-economic status · State, territory and federal governments have introduced programs, and continue to seek to identify further methods, for redressing this disadvantage · Yet recent research indicates that government programs are inadequate when considered against the requirement to raise Indigenous people to a position of equality in Australian society · Similarly, there is little understanding within Australian society of the requirement to and legitimacy of adopting special measures · Government policy does not acknowledge the applicability to Indigenous people of the right to self-determination. In 1997 the government actively rejected self- determination as the basis of Indigenous policy. · Key reports which make recommendations for redressing Indigenous disadvantage, including the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody, and Bringing them home, the National Inquiry into the Separation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Children from Their Families, have not been fully implemented. Many recommendations, particularly those concerning the application of the principle of self-determination, have been actively rejected. · The Social Justice Package, the third component of the government’s response to the Mabo decision (alongside the Native Title Act and the National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Land Fund), has been abandoned. Following broad consultations with Indigenous peoples, peak Indigenous organisations had proposed that the social justice package involve measures to redress Indigenous disadvantage and to recognise the unique status of Indigenous people.
    [Show full text]