Aboriginal economic status by ATSIC regions: analyses of 1986 Census data

This paper examines differences in Aboriginal socioeconomic status between Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission (ATSIC) regions. The administration of programs administered by ATSIC Australia-wide have been largely decentralised into 60 regions under the Commonwealth Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission Act 1989. This is an exploratory regional analysis of Aboriginal socioeconomic status; it utilises 1986 Census data tabulations by ATSIC regions, which were produced by the Australian Bureau of Statistics for the Commission. The methods used include a comparative examination of selected socioeconomic indicators at regional level, as well as a spatial analysis of an Aboriginal socioeconomic status index. The analyses reveal marked regional variations in Aboriginal socioeconomic status. The paper concludes with a discussion of some important implications for policy formulation.of these regional differences

Recent developments in national Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander health strategy

In this paper I will describe some of the sentinel events in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander health policy and strategy during 2003 and the early part of 2004. This will involve discussion on the: • National Strategic Framework in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Health • National Strategic Framework for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples Mental Health and Social and Emotional Well Being 2004–2009 • National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Health Performance Framework • The roll-out of the Primary Health Care Access Program • The National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Survey and the National Indigenous Health Survey These developments are consistent with a policy agenda that has evolved, in general terms, since the release of the National Aboriginal Health Strategy in 1989. However, I will also consider significant developments in the broader context for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander affairs, particularly the decision made in early 2004 by the Howard government to abolish the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission (ATSIC). While the key events and developments that are reported in this paper elaborate on an agenda that has been developing for more than a decade, the decision to abolish ATSIC is likely to have a revolutionary impact on the future development of Aboriginal health strategy

A Torres Strait Islanders Commission? Possibilities and issues

This paper has been written as CAEPR's second response to the terms of reference of the current HRSCATSIA inquiry into greater autonomy for 'the people of the Torres Strait'. It notes that Islander submissions to this inquiry have predominantly interpreted these terms of reference as being about Torres Strait Islander autonomy, as a cultural group Australia wide, and have used the inquiry to further calls for a national statutory Torres Strait Islanders organisation; a Torres Strait Islanders Commission as we have indicatively referred to it. The paper explores the demographic background to this call for a national Torres Strait Islanders Commission and also the position of Torres Strait Islanders within the current ATSIC structure. It then goes on to discuss issues that are likely to arise in a move towards a Torres Strait Islanders Commission, under the headings of representation, funding, organisational scale, dual identification and Aboriginal people in Torres Strait. The paper argues that a national Torres Strait Islanders Commission is a real possibility, but that it would raise some quite significant and difficult issues. Because of this, the paper also discusses another reform possibility; better representation and funding arrangements within ATSIC and the TSRA for Torres Strait Islanders resident outside the Strait. The paper argues that Torres Strait Islanders themselves must determine which of these reform possibilities they want to pursue and to facilitate this it suggests a national Torres Strait Islander convention as a necessary next step. The final brief section of the paper attempts to clarify relationships between reform towards a Torres Strait Islanders Commission, or better representation and funding arrangements within ATSIC and the TSRA for Torres Strait Islanders resident outside the Strait, and reform towards Torres Strait regional government. Both, it argues, can be legitimately pursued under the rubric of seeking 'greater autonomy for the people of the Torres Strait'

'Taxpayers' money'? : ATSIC and the Indigenous sector

Funding organisations controlled by Indigenous Australians and dedicated to serving them, in the name of ‘self-determination’, has created risks both for governments (who must satisfy the public that ‘taxpayers’ money’ is being well spent) and Indigenous leaders (who must not only meet service expectations of Indigenous Australians but also acquit funding according to government criteria). This chapter compares two experiments in governance: the Indigenous sector (thousands of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander corporations) and the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission (ATSIC)

Norway's Sami Parliament

There are many parallels between the role and function of the Samediggi, or Sami Parliament, and the former Australian Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission (ATSIC). However, the positive approach of the Norwegian government to a popularly elected indigenous representative body is in contrast to the experience in Australia, where ATSIC was frequently at loggerheads with government, especially in the last few years of its existence

A New National Indigenous Representative Body ... Again

Comparison between the functions and governance of the new Aboriginal representative body, the National Congress of Australia's First Peoples and the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission (ATSIC) - background - whether a new Indigenous representative body can play a meaningful role within the current Indigenous policy framework - whether the ideology of 'building partnerships' is sufficient to realise 'self-determination'

Reconciling public accountability and Aboriginal self-determination/self-management: Is ATSIC succeeding?

Since the early 1970s Commonwealth Governments have been pursuing policies of self-determination/self-management in relation to Aborigines. In 1987, the Hawke Government announced its intention to establish an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission (ATSIC) to further this policy goal. During the debates over ATSIC's formation, the issue of public accountability in the existing administration of Aboriginal affairs came to public prominence. The result was some extensive reworking of the ATSIC proposal, which in 1989 re-emerged with a strengthened emphasis on public accountability. This article traces the events and arguments surrounding ATSIC's formation and then goes on to examine ATSIC in practice. It asks whether ATSIC is succeeding in reconciling the two imperatives of Aboriginal self-determination/self-management and public accountability

Looking beyond the borderline: Development performance and prospects of Saibai Island, Torres Strait

The establishment in July 1994 of the Torres Strait Regional Authority (TSRA) within the Commonwealth Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission (ATSIC) has allowed Islander political leaders great latitude in shaping Torres Strait's political and economic destiny. Given that the majority of communities in the Torres Strait region are located on separate islands, the TSRA faces the issue of accommodating quite different community dynamics with overall regional considerations in mind. This paper examines one community in Torres Strait, Saibai Island, comparing demographic economic and labour characteristics over the past 20 years and looking at the sorts of economic choices Saibai Islanders have made recently. The consequences of historical trends and recent choices are explored in relation to regional economic aspirations. In conclusion a prediction of the economic, demographic and labour characteristics of Saibai Island community in 20 years time is offered

Building a sustainable national Indigenous representative body - issues for consideration

Issues of Indigenous disadvantage and dysfunction are before our eyes more frequently and more prominently than ever before. Barely a day goes by without another chilling and heartbreaking story of abuse, violence or neglect; or of demonstrations of the impact of entrenched poverty and despair among our communities. Without proper engagement with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples, (Indigenous peoples) governments will struggle in their efforts to make lasting progress in improving the conditions of Indigenous people and in our communities. A National Indigenous Representative Body is a fundamental component of any future action if we are to achieve positive change. At present, there is not a transparent, rigorous process for engaging with Indigenous peoples in determining the policy settings and to hold governments accountable for their performance

ATSIC's mechanisms for resource allocation: Current policy and practice

This paper is the first of two focusing on resource allocation policy and practice in the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission (ATSIC). The current approach to the distribution of funds is examined here, while CAEPR Discussion Paper No. 42 examines the potential relevance and implications of fiscal equalisation for ATSIC's future funding policy and practice. A review of ATSIC's current financial structure and powers forms the context for a wider consideration of the financial relationships evolving between the organisation's structural elements. In the complex budgetary process, ATSIC's existing functionally-based program structure is linked to legally specified funding roles. The budgetary procedures and related program framework are critically examined. The role of regional councils and regional planning are discussed and the implications of financial tensions emerging between councils are raised. The emerging relationship between ATSIC's Board of Commissioners, administrative arm and regional councils is posed as crucial, as is that between the newly-formed State Advisory Committees and councils. The paper considers the implications for ATSIC's current funding role of its representative regional structure, its program structure and emerging pressures towards decentralisation, arguing that ATSIC is in need of an integrated, holistic funding policy and procedures which link regional planning and service needs to national decisions about resource distribution