�����鱨վ

National Press Club Address

By Tom Calma

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Justice
Commissioner,
Human Rights and Equal Opportunity
Commission

Wednesday, 4 July 2007

I would like to begin by acknowledging all the traditional owners of the
land where we meet, the Ngunawal Ngambri people. Thank you Matilda House for
your welcome and for joining us here today.



It is a pleasure to jointly
address the Press Club with Fred Chaney from Reconciliation Australia. The
Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission and Reconciliation Australia have
a history of working in partnership together. There is a lot in common in the
work of our two organisations – particularly as we promote a learning
framework for policy development, and genuine engagement with Indigenous
peoples. So it is a pleasure Fred.



We are here to discuss some hard
issues – perhaps the hardest issues that any society can face.



I
stand before you today – not the favourite person in some people’s
books. But this won’t hold me back for one moment from directly raising a
few difficult home truths.



Less than a fortnight ago, the Indigenous
Affairs Minister put out a press release saying that he was disappointed in my
latest report to Parliament, the 2006 Social Justice Report. The
Minister thought the report was ‘unhelpful’, and that I was missing
the real outcomes being achieved in Indigenous affairs – “the
foundations that are being laid for the future”, as he called them. I was
also accused of taking a ‘glass half empty’
perspective.



Since the abolition of ATSIC in June 2005, I’ve become
the only independent statutory watchdog on Indigenous affairs in
Australia.



I was appointed the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander
Social Justice Commissioner for the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity
Commission in July 2004 so I have witnessed and commentated on the roll out of
the ‘new arrangements’ in Indigenous affairs.



No-one can deny
that the three years since have been a roller-coaster ride, so we must spare
some thoughts on what the impacts have been on Indigenous peoples.



Mr
Brough is a committed Minister, determined to leave a legacy - no doubt like
many before him. And anyone listening to the Minister can hardly doubt his zeal
and good intent. And I am also certain that the Prime Minister is absolutely
genuine with the concern and very public emotion that he’s displayed in
the past few weeks over the latest evidence of child sexual abuse in Aboriginal
communities in the Northern Territory.



The commitment and passion of
those two men is not at issue here - and it’s not what I want to reflect
on today.



Every year - in accordance with the requirements of the Native Title Act 1993 and the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity
Commission Act 1986 – I supply Federal Parliament with two
reports.



When my latest Social Justice Report was tabled in the Federal
Parliament a couple of weeks ago, I was meticulously honest. I have to be,
it’s what I get paid for - to monitor the impact of government policy on
the human rights of Indigenous Australians.



My report found that when you
look at the rhetoric of the government closely, there are major discrepancies
between what’s been promised and what’s been delivered.



I
reported it was clear that there are serious problems with the new
‘whole-of-government’ arrangements in Indigenous affairs.



The report documented the broad government commitments to overcoming
Indigenous disadvantage – which are by and large struggling because of a
lack of strategic focus detailing how the difficult and important jobs are to be
done.



And I reported that the most significant problem with the
government’s approach is the lack of capacity for engagement and
participation of Indigenous peoples. This manifests as a lack of connection
between the local and regional level, up to the state and national level; and as
a disconnect between the making of policy; and its implementation.



As I
put it simply ...

The outcome is bad policy that lacks an evidence base. It is also not
meeting standards set out by the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet on
policy implementation and released in late 2006 (in partnership with the
Australian National Audit Office).

You can see why Minister Brough
was ‘disappointed’ with my report!

The irony – if not the tragedy – is that in 2007-08, the
Australian Government will commit a record $3.5 billion on programmes and
services to address Indigenous disadvantage. It sounds like the money is
pouring in – but it troubles me that I can’t honestly tell you that
it’s being well targeted or spent. We simply don’t know, because
there are insufficient mechanisms for evaluating current programs, there’s
little transparency, and even less engagement with local communities.

As I said when releasing the report:

Current federal Government policy treats Indigenous people as 'problems to
be solved' rather than as active partners in creating a positive life vision for
our communities.

This is an incredibly disappointing thing to have to
say in 2007. We don’t need to re-invent the wheel - simply know our
history. Development and human rights experience, both in this country and
worldwide, shows that unless those people most affected by policy are most
involved, those policies will not succeed.



You’ll find a classic
example in the Pitjantjatjara lands of South Australia on how community
participation and ownership can achieve results. The ‘APY lands’ as
they are also known, have had their fair share of trouble and bad news headlines
in recent years - the most obvious symptoms of dysfunction being grog and petrol
sniffing. I was there in 2003 when the Government signed off on the first
Council of Australian Governments (COAG) trial. It was a pleasure to go back
only last week with Health Minister Tony Abbott and find such dramatic
improvements in governance, community infrastructure and general sense of
well-being.



It’s impossible to underestimate how important the
almost total elimination of petrol sniffing in the APY lands has been. And
it’s happened as the direct result of the introduction of lead-free OPAL
fuel.



Now that was something driven by those communities - as traumatised
and decimated as they were. They were prepared to own the problem - they simply
needed help in dealing with the outside forces that were causing it. In the
end, they almost begged for a ban on sniffable fuel - at a time when all
governments thought that would either be too hard or too expensive. But the
community knew what it needed. Now everyone is benefiting from this most
sensible partnership.



Of course, the APY lands are also ‘dry’
communities – once again, a decision taken and completely
‘owned’ by the people themselves.



I advocate for individuals
and communities taking responsibility. And I recognise that responsibility is
a learned behaviour, and it must be embraced, nurtured and developed.
Responsibility is rarely achieved by being imposed.



And this leads me
to family violence and abuse. There’s never an excuse for any sort of
abuse, and there never has been. It is not part of our culture, and never was.



Confronting abuse should lead to a commitment to principled
engagement with Indigenous peoples so that we are recognised as active
participants and agents of change for our own futures and for those of our
children.



Much has been written in recent weeks about the ‘rivers
of grog’ that seem to underpin much of the family violence, neglect and
dysfunction that we’re now hearing about. We can’t kid ourselves
that simply closing the canteens or banning grog is going to fix the underlying
problems of addiction or make people ‘responsible’.



In all
of this, it’s the education and empowerment of peoples, the follow-up and
the support that is all-important.



When I worked at ATSIS in 2003, I
managed a program that was called Community Participation Agreements. It was
only a small program, but it was driven by Indigenous people who didn’t
want to get “sit down money” any more. They wanted to be active.
They certainly didn’t want to be painting rocks white – they wanted
to do meaningful activities that would benefit themselves or their
community.



Sadly, when we were starting to see results, the CPA program
was axed. It only saved about $11 million – but it lost Aboriginal and
Torres Strait Islanders a heck of a lot of responsibility and empowerment
potential.



In some way, those agreements were the precursor of what are
now called SRAs, or Shared Responsibility Agreements.



I’ve said
that the SRA process offers some glimmers of hope. For my 2006 report, we
conducted a survey of communities that had entered into these agreements –
and most Aboriginal people were generally positive about the
process.



However, community confidence and satisfaction in the SRA
process was limited by the short-term nature of the funding, disproportionate
accountability requirements, lack of flexibility once the agreement was signed
– and, indeed, the communities own high expectations of what those
agreements could deliver and how they should be part of an enduring, long-term
development strategy.



Many saw the SRA process as a way to change their
relationship with government - to one that is based on addressing their needs
and building their capacity to address ongoing problems.



However, many
communities have been left disappointed with the government not matching those
expectations. It’s a warning bell for the future that we ignore at our
peril.



In Sydney yesterday, I launched my latest reports to Parliament.
I focused significantly on the NT situation and examined the connections between
the policy failures that are central to the government’s current approach
to Indigenous issues and the announced measures.



Some of the questions
I raised yesterday about how the government will achieve its objectives
in the Northern Territory included:

• First, on what basis will the government intervene in one community as
  opposed to another? in the absence of any situational and needs analysis of
  what community is in most need.

• Second, how will the government decide the appropriate approach for the
  specific needs of individual communities? I am concerned about a mismatch
  that has already revealed itself between the public debate on these issues and
  the findings of the Little �����鱨վ are Sacred report.

• Third, what role does the community have in this process? Why is it
  an ‘intervention’ and not a ‘partnership’?

• Fourth, if the government intends to make lasting change – how will
  it know when such change has occurred? without the statistics and the
  necessary regional and local level planning.

• Fifth, will the government conduct child protection checks on volunteers
  and other personnel who enter Indigenous communities to assist in this
  process? and

• Will the government support capacity building to improve community
  engagement and dispute resolution systems within Indigenous communities?

There are serious policy issues raised by each of these
questions. And many go to the capacity of government – especially within
a system for delivering services that is problematic.



These are hard
debates that we must have to make the government’s commitments work into
the long term.



I firmly believe that the government’s announcement
provides a historic opportunity, one that arguably only comes along once in a
generation of political and public policy debate.



We must applaud the
Prime Minister, Minister Brough, and the Opposition Leader for the coming
together of political concern. After decades of pain and the ignored cries from
our people – the very ones being hurt - the issue is finally, firmly on
the political radar and on the front pages. And it must stay there.



What
I am urging is for us to learn the lessons of past mistakes and learn the
lessons from successes. We are not starting from scratch here.



Frankly, we are kidding ourselves if we cannot see that there is a
connection between the problems of the existing policy approach to Indigenous
affairs – avoidable, fixable problems I might add – and the proposed
approach in the NT.



Even now, there are some lessons for us in the
ashes of ATSIC that can help us find a way forward.



For example, in 2003
ATSIC developed a family violence strategy, with a series of primary actions to
be implemented, all mapped out at a regional level. It was a far-sighted,
practical piece of policy planning – and in the rush to yet another policy
revolution, it’s been consigned to the dustbin.



For a long time now
the various state, federal and territory health departments have also developed
a series of regional health planning forums under the National Indigenous Health
Strategy. There are also ATSIC regional plans, and similar plans for housing
and criminal justice at the state level.



So much of the planning has
already been done. It now requires resources and the commitment to action.



Announcing the ‘national emergency response’ to child sexual
abuse in the Northern Territory two weeks ago, the Prime Minister estimated that
the cost would be “some tens of millions” of dollars. He later
confirmed that “the full power and resources of the Commonwealth will be
directed to making lasting change.” These commitments are
welcomed.



But let us remember that this not just about child
sexual abuse.



It’s about addressing the full range of issues that
manifest and contribute to abuse. It’s about addressing broader health
issues like closing the 17-year life expectancy gap between Indigenous and
non-Indigenous Australians. It’s about educating people about their rights
and their responsibilities that go hand in hand with those rights. It’s
about creating and providing life opportunities, and as Fred has indicated,
it’s about partnerships and meaningful engagement with those most
affected. It must be a holistic and comprehensive partnership that is in place
for as long as it takes to address the inequalities.



I will simply say
that unless all governments understand that this national crisis is a long-term
catch-up commitment that is going to cost the nation. We will in ten or twenty
years time be dealing with the same dreadful intertwined issues, and the same
shocked and appalled headlines.



The complex issues being tackled and the
proposed measures to be taken in the Northern Territory also raise a host of
fundamental human rights principles. It is of the utmost importance to
Australia’s international reputation, and for community respect for our
system of government, that solutions to all aspects of these matters respect the
human rights and freedoms of everyone involved.

These rights are clearly spelt out in international Conventions (such as
the Convention on the Rights of the Child, the Convention on the Elimination of
Discrimination Against Women and the Convention on the Elimination of all forms
of Racial Discrimination), to which Australia is a party.

HREOC and I will continue to work constructively with governments,
Indigenous communities and the broader Australian public to help ensure that the
proposed measures are consistent with Australia’s human rights
obligations.



That the conditions of life for Aboriginal people have
languished so terribly and for so long is a cause of national shame. But with
real long-term commitment and the resources and finances to match, we can turn
this situation around and have a nation and peoples who are proud of what they
have achieved together - now and into the future.



It will take
leadership, bipartisanship and determined, collaborative action and honest, open
conversations to keep the commitments and responses on track. And I intend to
play my part in achieving this.



Thank you.