Chapter 4Emerging themes and future directions
4.1The committee's inquiry is focused on the regression of the four socio-economic outcomes, as set out in its terms of reference. In considering the written and oral evidence received by the committee so far, several significant and inter-related themes and issues have become apparent to the committee which are impacting progress towards Closing the Gap.
4.2These themes include the impact of a deficit verses strengths-based approach to Closing the Gap, measuring and reporting progress under the National Agreement, gaps in data both in terms of agreed definitions and collection, gaps in accountability necessary to drive change, and the importance of evidence-based investments from all governments to achieve the Closing the Gap targets.
Deficit verses strengths-based approach to Closing the Gap
4.3Concerns were raised in evidence regarding a deficit approach to Closing the Gap measures and the harm this can cause Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people and communities.
4.4A deficit approach is characterised by 'deficit discourse' which includes disempowering patterns of thought, language and practice that represent people in terms of deficiencies and failures. In relation to Closing the Gap measures, the Victorian Aboriginal Child and Community Agency (VACCA) explained that a deficit approach perpetuates a deficit narrative by measuring Aboriginal outcomes against non-Aboriginal benchmarks, rather than recognising and measuring success on Aboriginal terms.
4.5Similarly, the Southern Aboriginal Corporation described current Closing the Gap targets as 'largely focused on Indigenous outcomes relative to the non‑Indigenous population, which contributes to a deficit approach'. They gave the following examples of what this approach looks like:
'Aboriginal children are better off with non-Aboriginal families' rather than 'Aboriginal children need to be raised with cultural permanency; wellbeing for Aboriginal children is correlated with cultural connection';
'Being Aboriginal is a risk factor' rather than 'Protective abilities and strengths are embedded in Aboriginal culture; belonging to culture creates resilience leading to better social, emotional and physical health outcomes';
'Educational outcomes for Aboriginal students are significantly lower than for their non-Aboriginal counterparts' rather than 'Australian past policies of excluding Aboriginal people from education has caused harm, which still impacts Aboriginal students today'; and
'Aboriginal people are more likely to offend and end up in prison than non‑Aboriginal people' rather than 'The over surveillance of Aboriginal people leads to a higher likelihood of involvement in the criminal justice system'.
4.6The committee heard that the deficit approach does not recognise or leverage the inherent strengths, knowledge, and capabilities of Indigenous communities which can have a demoralising effect on communities. Gayaa Dhuwi (Proud Spirit) Australia explained:
The current methods for measuring progress against Closing the Gap targets are overly focussed on deficits, presenting Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples and communities through a lens of failure rather than strength. This problem-focused perspective not only undermines the strength of communities, but also fails to acknowledge the resilience, cultural richness, and self-determination of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples.
4.7The National Indigenous Health Leadership Alliance (NIHLA) also observed that the data collected under Closing the Gap emphasises the disparities between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians, which perpetuates negative stereotypes and overlooks the inherent strengths of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities. NIHLA commented that this deficit focus can lead to policies that address perceived shortcomings, rather than building on existing cultural, social, and community assets. In contrast, a strengths‑based approach can empower communities, promote self‑determination, and foster more effective and culturally appropriate policies and programs.
4.8The Australian Indigenous Governance Institute (AIGI) agreed that current Closing the Gap targets 'emphasise a deficit mindset [and] the ways in which they are written and evaluated undermine the successes and work of communities and organisations'.
Importance of social and emotional wellbeing in a strengths-based approach
4.9To support a strengths-based approach to Closing the Gap, the committee received evidence about the importance of imbedding social and emotional concepts and targets that are meaningful to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people throughout the National Agreement.
4.10In explaining the concept of social and emotional wellbeing, Dr Clinton Schultz contended that:
Social and emotional wellbeing is a holistic concept that encompasses the physical, mental, spiritual and cultural dimensions of health. From a First Nations perspective, social and emotional wellbeing emphasises connections to law, culture, spirituality, ancestry, family and community. It is inseparable from our ability to live—strong connection to law, culture, language, country and kinship.
4.11Social and emotional wellbeing measures can include:
cultural determinants of health: Connection to land, community, identity, language, and self-determination;
spiritual well-being: Sense of belonging, continuity of cultural practices, connection to ancestors; and
the impact of governance structures on well-being: Self-determined policy, access to culturally safe services, Indigenous-controlled decision-making.
4.12Victorian Aboriginal Community Controlled Health Organisation made the point that ‘maintaining or restoring SEWB is about supporting Aboriginal peoples to maintain a secure sense of cultural identity and cultural values, and to participate in cultural practices that allow them to exercise their cultural rights and responsibilities’.
4.13Numerous submitters strongly supported the incorporation of social and emotional wellbeing measures into the current framework.
4.14For example, AIGI submitted that incorporating concepts of wellness in Closing the Gap measurements could provide a clearer picture of where systems can be strengthened and highlight the strengths of First Nations Peoples.
4.15Gayaa Dhuwi (Proud Spirit) Australia explained that incorporating social and emotional wellbeing measures, alongside traditional indicators in the National Agreement is critical to the success of the agreement. the Victorian Aboriginal Community Controlled Health Organisation (VACCHO) agreed with this approach, submitting that 'any work towards the Agreement's outcomes needs to take a deeply holistic approach that considers political, historical and social determinants of health and wellbeing, which strives to strengthen the protective factors'. As such, VACCHO urged that a national Aboriginal wellbeing measurement framework, to be led by the National Aboriginal Community Controlled Health Organisation (NACCHO), be implemented, to operate alongside existing measures.
4.16The National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Women's Alliance (NATSIWA) went further to recommend the introduction of new indicators that specifically measure cultural safety, connection to Country, language revitalisation, and community cohesion. This view was shared other submitters, including the Australian Indigenous Doctors' Association, which observed that:
Disconnection from culture, kinship, language and Country impact the health and wellbeing of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people throughout the life span. Inclusion of measurements reflecting these cultural determinants underpins a holistic and integrated approach.
4.17Based on this evidence, it is clear to the committee that a focus on Indigenous concepts of social and emotional wellbeing is necessary to promote a strengths‑based approach to Closing the Gap and to address the continued regression of certain socio‑economic targets.
Measuring and reporting progress on Closing the Gap
4.18Submitters from various sectors raised concerns about difficulties in measuring and reporting on Closing the Gap priorities and targets, including gaps in the data.
4.19The National Indigenous Australians Agency (NIAA) acknowledged there are 'gaps and deficiencies with the quality and availability of data on First Nations people' and that the 'data sources for the Closing the Gap targets do not provide a complete picture for First Nations peoples' experience, use of services or outcomes'.
4.20In its review of the National Agreement, the Productivity Commission (commission) identified concerning data gaps. The most critical gap identified is the lack of any systematic data on the priority reforms. Commissioner Selwyn Button informed the committee that currently there is no consistent way of collecting data to show progress against these key reforms. As the priority reforms are considered 'pillars' of the National Agreement and designed to impact all other outcomes under the agreement, this lack of data is a significant concern.
4.21The second significant data gap identified by the commission relates to the culturally appropriate indicators in the agreement. The agreement introduced two new socio-economic outcomes and made a commitment to identify contextual information on the cultural determinants of wellbeing to aid reporting. However, citing the Australian Council of TESOL Associations, the commission stated that the current approach is 'inconsistent, sporadic, tokenistic and inadequate' because it fails to recognise the centrality of cultural determinants like language across the priority reforms and socio-economic outcomes. As a result of these data gaps, the commission concluded that significant data development work is needed.
4.22In addition to data gaps, the commission raised concerns with the inconsistent collection of data across jurisdictions, and the use of inconsistent definitions of key terms. As a case in point, Commissioner Button advised there is no consistent way that jurisdictions define or collect information on family violence across Australia. Without consistent definitions and collection methods, there is no way of looking at national reporting.
4.23Ms Pat Turner, CEO of NACCHO and Lead Convenor of the Coalition of Peaks, also described challenges with inconsistent data collection across jurisdictions:
We collect the data from whatever sources we can, but the trouble with the data is that it is not consistently collected within each jurisdiction. Therefore, it is noncomparable on a national basis. I think that's been a deliberate strategy of the states and territories for a long time. Until we get a willingness to have a consistent, coherent national database for First Nations peoples, we are going to be struggling with this.
4.24In relation to data about First Nations people with disability, the committee heard the current data is 'limited and often inaccurate' due to under-reporting and fragmentation across multiple datasets. Additionally, the committee was told that Western ideas of disability and methodologies do not account for First Nations' cultural understandings of disability. Further, the existing data lacks the detail needed to understand the experiences of First Nations people with disability in different contexts, such as where they live, their age and gender.
4.25In relation to data about family violence, First Nations Advocates Against Family Violence advised that as the current data available regarding Target 13 of the National Agreement is 'outdated and unreliable', and it obscures the full impact of such violence and undermines effective policy responses.
4.26In response to these issues, the Aboriginal Health Council of Western Australia (AHCWA) suggested that governments need to commit to improving the consistency and compatibility of data on Closing the Gap measures across jurisdictions to enable meaningful analysis of progress.
Indigenous Data Sovereignty
4.27In addition to the gaps and inconsistences in the available data, the committee heard considerable evidence about the importance of Indigenous Data Sovereignty (IDS).
4.28IDS refers to refers to 'the right of Indigenous peoples to exercise ownership over Indigenous Data. Ownership of data can be expressed through the creation, collection, access, analysis, interpretation, management, dissemination and reuse of Indigenous Data'.
4.29The principles set out in relation to IDS, as agreed at the 2018 National Indigenous Data Sovereignty Summit, are that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people have the right to:
exercise control of the data ecosystem including creation, development, stewardship, analysis, dissemination and infrastructure;
data that is contextual and disaggregated (available and accessible at individual, community and First Nations levels);
data that is relevant and empowers sustainable self-determination and effective self-governance;
data structures that are accountable to Indigenous peoples and First Nations; and
data that is protective and respects our individual and collective interests.
4.30AbSec, the NSW Child, Family and Community Peak Aboriginal Corporation, explained that IDS is critical, as exercising ownership of data about Aboriginal peoples supports Aboriginal communities to make informed decisions about priorities and actions to support the social, cultural and economic development of communities. Additionally, IDS could enable data to be collected in ways that reflect the values and cultural practices of communities and ultimately provide a more holistic picture of the lived realities and experiences of First Nations people.
4.31In its review of the National Agreement, the Productivity Commission revealed that it received overwhelming support for IDS:
The Commission receiving overwhelming support in engagements and submissions from Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander organisations, and a number of non-government organisations, for the agreement to be amended to support Indigenous Data Sovereignty.
4.32Priority Reform 4 of agreement requires governments to implement large-scale changes to data systems and practices to enable Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people to participate in decision-making about data, and to use data for their own purposes. However, as discussed in Chapter 3 of this report, the commission found that the agreement does not explicitly acknowledge the need for IDS and, regardless, governments have made little progress on the reform as it is worded.
4.33This led the commission to recommend that the National Agreement be amended to include IDS under Priority Reform 4 and that a Bureau of Indigenous Data be established.
Bureau of Indigenous Data
4.34The Bureau of Indigenous Data would be an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander-led independent statutory authority that would have 'clear accountability and dedicated resourcing to meet the data development commitments made by jurisdictions'. The Bureau would also:
support governments to embed Indigenous Data Governance into their data systems and practices;
invest in enhancing the data capability of organisations and communities; and
consolidate and oversee data development work for the agreement.
4.35The Coalition of Peaks provided their support for such a bureau, noting that it could be governed by an Indigenous Data Board, comprised of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people appointed by Joint Council.
4.36In response to the recommendation, NIAA advised that Joint Council has sought more information before determining whether to support a Bureau of Indigenous Data. As a first step, Joint Council agreed to establish a Data Policy Partnership (DPP) in July 2024. The DPP is tasked with considering options for a Bureau of Indigenous Data, as well as the scope, roles, responsibilities and resourcing needed to support Indigenous Data Governance and Closing the Gap data development more generally.
Accountability for Closing the Gap
4.37In its independent review, the Productivity Commission found that there is a lack of accountability for delivering on the commitments in the agreement. The commission concluded that existing accountability mechanisms are 'not sufficiently independent, do not contain timely and appropriate consequences for failure, obscure the individual responsibilities of each party and are not informed by high-quality evaluation'. Further, there are no consequences for failing to meet commitments, for example, by way of an independent evaluation or monitoring process.
4.38Additionally, the Australian Indigenous Governance Institute argued that the current system allows governments to assess themselves against the Closing the Gap targets without sufficient transparency or accountability to First Nations communities.
4.39The importance of effective accountability mechanisms in relation to Closing the Gap targets was raised by other submitters, including NACCHO and National Legal Aid. NACCHOasserted there is a need forincreased accountability for governments, including through Closing the Gap statements in the annual reports of government departments and agencies, as well as greater accountability to Joint Council and other relevant forums. National Legal Aid went further to emphasise the importance of enforcement of Closing the Gap targets, stating that this would 'shift the focus from rhetoric to measurable action'.
4.40Additionally, NACCHO also called for the urgent development of independent accountability mechanisms in all jurisdictions, as required by the National Agreement. The National Agreement states that by 2023, Government Parties agree to each identify, develop or strengthen an independent mechanism, or mechanisms, that will support, monitor, and report on the transformation of mainstream agencies and institutions. The mechanism should:
support mainstream agencies and institutions to embed transformation elements, and monitoring their progress;
be recognisable for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people and be culturally safe;
engage with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people to listen and to respond to concerns about mainstream institutions and agencies; and
report publicly on the transformation of mainstream agencies and institutions, including progress, barriers and solutions.
4.41According to the Productivity Commission, the independent mechanism should drive accountability by supporting, monitoring and reporting on governments’ transformations. Further, while the mechanism may have been envisaged as overseeing the implementation of Priority Reform 3, ‘each Priority Reform supports, and is supported by, the other Priority Reforms, with the ultimate aim of securing and accelerating improvements in the lives of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people’.
4.42To date, no independent mechanisms have been established in any state or territory or at the Commonwealth level. Some progress towards an independent mechanism has been made in NSW, with the NSW Coalition of Aboriginal Peak Organisations (NSW CAPO) designing and presenting a model for the NSW government's consideration. However, the committee was told that the NSW government has not yet made a decision on whether to implement this model.
4.43The Coalition of Peaks emphasised the importance of strong accountability mechanisms to support, monitor and report on governments' progress in delivering on their commitments under the National Agreement. They recommended that all governments establish an appropriately resourced independent mechanism to support and monitor governments' progress towards implementing the National Agreement.
4.44Ms Turner indicated that independent mechanisms have been 'a sticking point between the peaks and the governments'. However, as a next step, the Coalition of Peaks will be considering a final report commissioned about this issue that will be provided to the Minister for consideration.
4.45Given the importance of independent accountability mechanisms in monitoring and reporting on governments’ progress in delivering on their commitments under the National Agreement, and the lack of progress to establish any mechanisms to date, the committee will endeavour to pursue this matter in the 48th Parliament.
Funding models
4.46The committee heard that funding for Closing the Gap targets should be 'flexible, sustained, and outcomes-driven, prioritising initiatives led by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander organisations'.[65]Additionally, funding should be 'needs-based and community-led, ensuring that resources are directed towards culturally appropriate services designed by and for First Nations communities'.[66]
4.47Some submitters gave evidence that funding for ACCOs was insufficient. They argued that this undermines Priority Reform 2 of the National Agreement which seeks to build up the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander community‑controlled sector. For example, Mr John Leha, CEO of AbSec, told the committee that in relation to funding for ACCOs providing out-of-home care:
I think Aboriginal service providers are receiving less than about 10 per cent of investment to provide care. What we know is that their Aboriginal children make up nearly 50 per cent of out-of-home care in the state of New South Wales. So there is a lack of investment, and it's very clear that there is a lack of investment into ACCOs to continue to provide wraparound supports for not only kids in out-of-home care but also the full continuum of care, to the point of prenatal supports and family and domestic violence wraparound services.
4.48The committee's attention was also drawn to a significant funding gap in relation to community-led initiatives to address targets at a local level. Ms Pat Turner explained that:
… right now there is no significant dedicated, cohesive pool of funding available for community led initiatives in relation to Closing the Gap. As a result, our people are constrained to funding rounds of government to develop and implement their local solutions they know will work for their communities.
4.49The committee also heard from numerous submitters that the current funding models for Closing the Gap, particularly in relation to funding for ACCOs, have a short-term focus which is detrimental. Further, 'short, insecure and inflexible funding contracts limit operational planning and flexibility'. As a case in point, the Ngaanyatjarra Pitjantjatjara Yankunytjatjara Women's Council (NPYWC) described difficulties in securing long-term funding to deliver essential services in the NPY Lands:
Despite Government Parties agreeing to implement measures to increase the proportion of services delivered by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander organisations, particularly community-controlled organisations, not enough long-term funding is allocated to organisations such as NPYWC to meaningfully contribute to change and transformation in our communities.
4.50First Nations Advocates Against Family Violence also described the impact of short-term and fragmented funding for initiatives addressing domestic, family and sexual violence. They explained this type of funding hinders long-term planning and the development of sustainable, community-led responses. Further, it prevents the building of trusted, culturally relevant programs that can address the root causes of violence.
4.51Similarly, NIHLA told the committee that short-term funding and uncertainty in funding, combined with the pressure to produce early deliverables, makes it difficult for ACCOs to deliver services in a way that achieves long-term sustainable change.
4.52While the Closing the Gap framework is not a funding mechanism, nor does it provide for a funding pool or dedicated funding source, all jurisdictions are responsible for funding the activities to achieve the targets in line with the priority reforms.
Recommendation
4.53In considering the significant issues emerging from the evidence received to date, it is clear to the committee that these matters should be investigated further, particularly as they relate to the regressing socio-economic targets.
4.54The committee recommends that the Senate reappoint the Select Committee on Measuring Outcomes for First Nations Communities in the 48th Parliament. This would enable further consideration and inquiry into these important issues that are critical to the well-being of First Nations people and communities around the country.
Senator Dorinda Cox
Chair