Suchergebnisse

AbstractThe way Australian federal governments have approached Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander employment and welfare policy over the last two decades has been a paradigmatic example of what not to do in policymaking. In the absence of effective engagement or consultation, a series of decisions under Coalition and Australian Labor Party governments have had a range of negative consequences for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. These changes – centred around the closure of the Community Development Employment Projects (CDEP) scheme and implementation of the Community Development Programme (CDP) – have resulted in increased unemployment, inadequate support for job creation, a dramatic over‐application of income penalties to social security recipients and reduced capacity in many community organisations. This article argues that these outcomes constitute policy failure, especially given that genuine engagement with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people could have prevented many of these consequences. It then turns to an exploration of three ways in which Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people are responding to such policy failure: through promotion of new narratives, new alliances, and new institutions. The study concludes that while we should avoid "specious hope", there is room for optimism in a renewed push for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander sovereignty.

Current policy often focuses on 'Overcoming Indigenous Disadvantage' by simultaneously addressing multiple deficits that many Indigenous people experience relative to other Australians. International literature often frames such issues in terms of the contested concepts of social exclusion and social inclusion. This paper attempts to analyse what Indigenous social inclusion might look like in a plural society such as Australia. In addition to contextualising Australian policy in broader debates, this paper also briefly introduces several relevant theories of justice, diversity and Indigenous rights to provide a theoretical framework for conceptualising social inclusion. The article concludes with some reflections on some practical suggestions to move the debate forward. In principle, enhancing Indigenous social and political participation in policy design should both increase inclusion and reduce disadvantage by enhancing the effectiveness of programs that have a substantial Indigenous client base.

Recent years have seen a burgeoning interest in developing indicator frameworks for 'Indigenous wellbeing'. Implicit in each of the frameworks are particular conceptions of what constitutes the 'good life' for Indigenous peoples and what 'Indigenous development' should entail. In developing these frameworks, then, certain judgements must be made about whether statistical equality should be prioritised as a 'development' goal. This issue has generated long‐standing debate and in this context must be broached anew. In this paper we briefly examine the growing interest in Indigenous wellbeing and outline three prominent indicator frameworks: the Productivity Commission's indicators for 'Overcoming Indigenous Disadvantage'; the 'capability indicators' developed by the Cape York Institute for Policy and Leadership; and the indicators of wellbeing developed by the United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues. The first prioritises statistical equality between Indigenous and non‐Indigenous Australians; the second adds a concern with 'capabilities'; and the last emphasises the importance of distinct cultural preferences. We offer an assessment of these approaches, drawing in part on Amartya Sen's work. We argue that in seeking to improve the wellbeing of Indigenous Australians, policy‐makers should not only make their own normative assumptions clear, but also be aware of the implications of their decisions for constituents with different worldviews.