Bureaucracy firmly in the sights

A key question throughout debate over the merits of a proposed Indigenous voice to parliament has been how is it possible for a nation to spend $30bn a year on Aboriginal services and have so little to show for it in terms of improvements in the health and living conditions it is supposed to produce. The Productivity Commission’s draft report into its review of the National Agreement on Closing the Gap goes some way to providing an answer. And it is a depressing read for Indigenous communities that have been waiting for change and for taxpayers who are footing the bill. The report underpins a key argument of many on the Yes side of the referendum campaign, that greater Indigenous participation is the key to better outcomes.

This may be true but it is not the full story. More fundamental is the need to break the inertia that resides within a bureaucracy that appears more interested in self-preservation than in responding to the needs of the Indigenous communities and taxpayers it is supposed to serve. The Productivity Commission notes that progress in implementing the Closing the Gap agreement’s priority reforms has been weak for the most part and reflects a business-as-usual approach to implementing policies and programs that affect the lives of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. It says current implementation raises questions about whether governments fully have grasped the scale of change required to their systems, operations and ways of working to deliver the unprecedented shift to which they have committed. The draft report paints a picture of a system in which the gatekeepers interview themselves about possible solutions without bothering to ask communities what they need. It is therefore no surprise the Productivity Commission said it had yet to identify a government organisation that had articulated a clear vision for what transformation looked like, adopted a strategy to achieve that vision and tracked the impact of actions within the organisation (and in the services it funded) towards that vision. This is despite almost a decade of the Closing the Gap initiative that both sides of politics have declared to be a national priority.

The Productivity Commission notes that transformation can be realised only by drawing on the experiences and perspective of those whom governments serve, and working together to develop a strategy. It says by failing to properly consult or articulate a strategy it is nearly impossible for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, and the broader Australian community, to hold governments to account. The Productivity Commission says existing mechanisms lack bite – they 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. In short, the system is a Kafkaesque public service revolving door that could have been lifted straight from a script of Yes Minister.

Clearly, it is not good enough. It explains why serious Indigenous leaders are so frustrated and feel powerless to force the hand of government to address the local-level problems they encounter every day. The Productivity Commission says bodies such as the voice to parliament, treaty processes and justice commissions could have a role to play in holding governments to account. Noel Pearson says the voice will be a way to bring together local Indigenous leaders and government to work out community-specific solutions without bureaucracy. “The voice at the end of the day is a partnership table where we conduct negotiations with government,” Mr Pearson says. John Howard also supports dialogue. But he says campaigners for a voice have not explained how the new body would lead to better outcomes for Indigenous people. “Shouldn’t we just be sitting down talking to each other? Not about the voice, not about reparations, not about treaties, but just talking about how to lift up Aboriginal people, and put them in the mainstream of the community, finding out ways of doing it,” he said.

As a paper, we have outlined repeatedly our support for constitutional recognition of Indigenous Australians. The Productivity Commission findings of a disconnect between what is happening on the ground and what is discussed in metropolitan centres comes as no surprise to us, having spent decades reporting from the frontline in remote communities. The failure of bureaucracy must be at the centre of the referendum debate. Fixing this is the springboard through which the greater ambitions of constitutional recognition can be achieved. But we acknowledge there is legitimate debate about the merits of enshrining the voice in the Constitution rather than simply through legislation. Less bureaucracy and more action is bipartisan ground.