Indigenous Coordination Centres

Last updated

Indigenous Coordination Centres
Government Agency overview
Preceding Government Agency
  • Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders Commission (ATSIC)
JurisdictionGovernment of Australia
Parent departmentNational Indigenous Australians Agency

Indigenous Coordination Centres or ICCs are regional offices of the Australian Government Office of Indigenous Policy Coordination.

Contents

Indigenous Coordination Centres (ICC) are responsible for the provision and distribution of services to Indigenous Australians. [1] As of 2021, ICC offices operate in 30 locations across Australia. [1] Indigenous affairs were previously governed by the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission (ATSIC) from 1990-2005, the latter of which was dissolved due to a failure to meet its primary objectives including reducing poverty among Indigenous peoples. [2] [3] Following this dissolution, the Indigenous Coordination Centres then became the go between for Indigenous peoples and the Australian government. [4]

History

ICCs are currently being managed by the Australian Department of Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs. [4] However, they began as administrative offices under ATSIC but have since seen a reform in independent capacities. [4]

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders Commission (ATSIC)

ATSIC was formed in 1990 and oversaw the administration of Indigenous services and programs from the Australian government. [5] It was also the main advisory body to the Australian government on the Indigenous community, issues and policy settings. [6] ATSIC was run by an autonomous national board of directly elected Indigenous representatives. [7] Its purpose was to increase Indigenous participation in the political process [8] where those processes directly related to their lives and would have effects on them. ICCs were used as administration offices and were overseen under the Commission. [1] This Commission lasted 15 years, before being disbanded in 2005. [3]

Although the Commission had higher rates of Indigenous involvement and representation than any other government agency at the time, ATSIC was deemed a failure. [9] This happened for a number of reasons. Firstly, ATSIC faced rigid scrutiny in the name of keeping it accountable to central government, the result of which was slowness in administration and progress of the Indigenous programs enacted by the Commission. [9] Secondly, an official government report cited the still widespread socioeconomic disparity, health challenges and low standards of living for Indigenous Australians, [9] a challenge that ATSIC was created to combat. It also became the subject of political scrutiny, as there was a consensus in parliament that it was an unnecessary cost of tax revenue. [9]

ATSIC was dissolved with the aim of streamlining Indigenous programs and assigning them directly to suitable government departments, such that a specific department could look after the corresponding specific Indigenous program. [6] ICCs would then be used – after ATSIC’s dissolution – to coordinate between those government departments and the Indigenous community. [10]

The New Arrangements

The New Arrangements followed ATSIC’s dismantling and were enacted to address the socioeconomic disparity of Indigenous peoples, as compared to other Australians. [9] These arrangements have been termed as a ‘whole-of-government approach.’ [11] [4] This approach delineated new strategies for interactions between Indigenous Australian community representatives and the various levels of the Australian government. [12]

They consist of three cornerstones including ICCs, Shared Responsibility Agreements (SRAs) and Regional Partnership Agreements (RPAs), [13] and these agreements were made to outline the aims and responsibilities of the Australian government’s cooperation and coordination with Indigenous communities in addressing Indigenous affairs. [14] [15] The ICC responsibilities were also expanded under this arrangement.

Regions

As of January 2022, ICC offices operate in 30 regions across Australia [16] including:

Challenges and Aims

ICCs coordinate interaction between Indigenous Australians and mainstream government, as well as providing Indigenous leaders with an access point to different government agencies. [10] [17] The Indigenous community in Australia faces challenges along socio-economic lines, including lower health and living standards, not enough government support, as well as passivity in political processes. [4] ICCs are funded to tackle these challenges; their core aims are to restructure “policy development implementation and monitoring,” [18] and to support “coordination of activities across Commonwealth, state and non-governmental sectorial boundaries”. [18]

Policy Implementation

ICCs have been credited as a resourceful and unique response to the challenges faced by Indigenous Australians. [19] ICCs function by coordinating the various departments that are responsible for distributing services to Indigenous people. [19] Since ICCs are also responsible for brokering SRAs, they have been credited with successfully making these agreements with local communities. [19] The government has dedicated funds for programs supporting victims of domestic violence and improving infrastructure for Indigenous communities under the authority of ICCs. [19] These centres have also enhanced localised problem-solving and cultural consciousness. [19]

Criticisms

The successful coordination of Indigenous programs and funding across departments is contingent on the skills of ICC officers and managers. [20] These skills include the ability to advocate for policy change and negotiate with different levels of government as well as being able to cooperate with the Indigenous community. [10] ICC staff often do not have the authority or the skills suited for this kind of negotiation. [10] They rely mostly on senior officials to mitigate the need for advocacy skills, who, in turn, tend to be in short supply.

A strong criticism that has been made against ICCs is the “institutional inertia;” [21] that is the relative slowness and bureaucracy of policy execution that hinders the ICC’s ability to effectively coordinate programs. This bureaucracy has been criticised for resource wastage, where those resources could have gone directly into Indigenous development. [22] Because of the bureaucracy, there is also a disconnect between the lived realities of Indigenous Australians and the policies implemented on their behalf. [23] Communication between the ICCs and central government tends to be ineffective, therefore the policy settings made by the far-removed Commonwealth government are at times insufficient in addressing Indigenous issues. [23]

Accountability is also difficult to track, due to the vague outlines of large-scale coordination between government agencies and ICCs. [21] ICC managers have to negotiate with different levels of government and there is often confusion around effective policy implementation and shifting policy objectives. [21] ICCs are often unable to meet their goals due to limited funding. [24] [21] Funds are tied to certain prerequisites and strict conditions, which Indigenous communities struggle to meet. [25] Program funding was supposed to be streamlined under ICCs, but they have not succeeded in doing so. [21] This is due to the complexity of coordinating between different government departments and getting approval for programs, as well as coordinating within each Indigenous community. [21] Each government department requires their own particular program report, formatted to their standards, increasing the complexity and tediousness of the process. [21] Programs which do receive adequate funding are often short-lived, with funding contracts only being valid for a year, before another round of advocacy is needed. [21]

The Commonwealth government has also long been criticised for being too paternalistic in their relations with Indigenous Australians, [26] [21] and as a consequence of keeping administration to ICCs, programs are not Indigenous led, and therefore undermine the independence and self-determination of Indigenous Australians. [23] A consequence of relegating the responsibility of Indigenous service provision to state governments as opposed to federal government is that the engagement of the states in community development in remote spaces is limited. [23] Therefore, Indigenous programs in more remote areas are suffering from neglect from state government, as compared with larger cities. [23] There is a perception that remote Indigenous spaces are ‘ungovernable’ and too culturally and geographically distant and isolated from mainstream governance. [19]

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission</span> Australian government agency, 1990-2004

The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission (ATSIC) (1990–2005) was the Australian Government body through which Aboriginal Australians and Torres Strait Islanders were formally involved in the processes of government affecting their lives, established under the Hawke government in 1990. A number of Indigenous programs and organisations fell under the overall umbrella of ATSIC.

Public Safety Canada, legally incorporated as the Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness (PSEPC), is the department of the Government of Canada responsible for (most) matters of public safety, emergency management, national security, and emergency preparedness in Canada.

The Office of Indigenous Policy Coordination (OIPC) was the Australian Government-led unit for the coordination of policy, programs and services for Indigenous Australians from July 2004 to August 2011.

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Services was part of the now disbanded Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission (ATSIC).

The Office of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Health, often known by its acronym OATSIH, was a division of the Australian Government's Department of Health and Ageing. It was set up in 1994 in the then Department of Human Services and Health to give a greater focus on the health needs of Indigenous Australians in mainstream health programs.

The Australian Intelligence Community (AIC) and the National Intelligence Community (NIC) or National Security Community of the Australian Government are the collectives of statutory intelligence agencies, policy departments, and other government agencies concerned with protecting and advancing the national security and national interests of the Commonwealth of Australia. The intelligence and security agencies of the Australian Government have evolved since the Second World War and the Cold War and saw transformation and expansion during the Global War on Terrorism with military deployments in Afghanistan, Iraq and against ISIS in Syria. Key international and national security issues for the Australian Intelligence Community include terrorism and violent extremism, cybersecurity, transnational crime, the rise of China, and Pacific regional security.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs</span>

The former Australian Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs (FaHCSIA) was a department of the Government of Australia located in Greenway in Canberra. It was formed in 2007 and absorbed the former Department of Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs. As a result of an Administrative Arrangements Order issued on 18 September 2013, the Department of Social Services was established and assumed most of the responsibilities of FaHCSIA; with indigenous affairs functions assumed by the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet.

The Department of Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs was an Australian government department that existed between January 2006 and December 2007. The department which preceded the Department of Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs was the Department of Family and Community Services (1998–2006).

An outstation, homeland or homeland community is a very small, often remote, permanent community of Aboriginal Australian people connected by kinship, on land that often, but not always, has social, cultural or economic significance to them, as traditional land. The outstation movement or homeland movement refers to the voluntary relocation of Aboriginal people from towns to these locations.

The Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet (PM&C) is an Australian Government public service central department of state with broad ranging responsibilities, primary of which is for intergovernmental and whole of government policy coordination and assisting the prime minister of Australia in managing the Cabinet of Australia. The PM&C was established in 1971 and traces its origins back to the Prime Minister's Department established in 1911.

Indigenous Australian self-determination, also known as Aboriginal Australian self-determination, is the power relating to self-governance by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples in Australia. It is the right of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples to determine their own political status and pursue their own economic, social and cultural interests. Self-determination asserts that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples should direct and implement Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander policy formulation and provision of services. Self-determination encompasses both Aboriginal land rights and self-governance, and may also be supported by a treaty between a government and an Indigenous group in Australia.

The National Indigenous Council (NIC) was an appointed advisory body to the Australian Government through the Minister's for Indigenous Affairs' Taskforce on Indigenous Affairs (MTIA) established in November 2004, and wound up in early 2008. It was chaired by Sue Gordon, a Western Australian magistrate.

The Canadian Indian Health Transfer Policy provides a framework for the assumption of control of health services by Indigenous peoples in Canada and set forth a developmental approach to transfer centred on the concept of self-determination in health. Through this process, the decision to enter into transfer discussions with Health Canada rests with each community. Once involved in transfer, communities are able to take control of health program responsibilities at a pace determined by their individual circumstances and health management capabilities.

The Stronger Futures policy is a multifaceted social policy of the Australian government concerning the Aboriginal population of the Northern Territory. It is underpinned by the Stronger Futures in the Northern Territory Act 2012, which ceases to have effect 10 years after its commencement on 29 June 2012.

The Indigenous Land and Sea Corporation (ILSC) is an Australian federal government statutory authority with national responsibilities to assist Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people to acquire land and to manage assets to achieve cultural, social, environmental and economic benefits for Indigenous peoples and future generations. It was established as the Indigenous Land Corporation (ILC) following the enactment of the Native Title Act 1993.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Minister for Indigenous Australians</span> Australian cabinet position

The Minister for Indigenous Australians in the Government of Australia is a position which holds responsibility for affairs affecting Indigenous Australians. Previous ministers have held various other titles since the position was created in 1968, most recently Minister for Indigenous Affairs. Since 1 June 2022 it has been held by Linda Burney.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Department of Social Services (Australia)</span>

The Department of Social Services (DSS) is a department of the Government of Australia charged with the responsibility for national policies and programs that help deliver a strong and fair society for all Australians. The department develops and implements social policy.

The Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute (AHURI) is a national not-for-profit independent network organization that funds, conducts, disseminates, and tailors research on housing, homelessness, cities and urban policy. The organisation's funding is received from the Australian Government, state and territory governments, as well as contributions from partner universities. As the only organisation in Australia dedicated exclusively to housing, homelessness, cities and related urban research, AHURI is a unique venture. Through its national network of university partners, AHURI undertakes research that supports policy development at all levels of government, assists industry in improving practice and informs the broader community. In 2022, AHURI had nine research partners across Australia.

The Department of Home Affairs is the Australian Government interior ministry with responsibilities for national security, law enforcement, emergency management, border control, immigration, refugees, citizenship, transport security and multicultural affairs. The portfolio also includes federal agencies such as the Australian Federal Police, Australian Border Force and the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation. The Home Affairs portfolio reports to the Minister for Home Affairs, currently held by Clare O'Neil, and is led by the Secretary of the Department of Home Affairs, Mike Pezzullo. In 2022, the Australian Federal Police, Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission and Australian Transaction and Analysis Center were de-merged from the department and moved to the Attorney General portfolio.

References

  1. 1 2 3 "Subcategory". Agreements, Treaties and Negotiated Settlements. Retrieved 11 January 2022.
  2. ↑ Hunt, Janet (2007). "The Whole-of-Government Experiment in Indigenous Affairs: A Question of Governance Capacity". Public Policy. 2 (2): 155–174 – via Informit.
  3. 1 2 Piper, Joshua (2006). "AUSTRALIA'S "NEW ARRANGEMENTS IN INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS": A NEW APPROACH OR A NEW PATERNALISM?". Pacific Rim Law & Policy Journal. 15 (1): 265–299. ProQuest   194899617 – via Proquest.
  4. 1 2 3 4 5 Hunt, “Experiment in Indigenous Affairs,” 158-159.
  5. ↑ Piper, “NEW ARRANGEMENTS,” 268.
  6. 1 2 Hunt, “Experiment in Indigenous Affairs,” 156.
  7. ↑ Piper, “NEW ARRANGEMENTS,” 268-269.
  8. ↑ Piper, “NEW ARRANGEMENTS,” 268-270.
  9. 1 2 3 4 5 Piper, “NEW ARRANGEMENTS,” 268-272.
  10. 1 2 3 4 Hunt, “Experiment in Indigenous Affairs,” 158.
  11. ↑ Sullivan, Patrick (2011). Belonging Together: Dealing with the Politics of Disenchantment in Australian Indigenous Affairs Policy. Acton, A.C.T.: Aboriginal Studies Press. pp. 37–48. ISBN   9780855757809.
  12. ↑ Hunt, “Experiment in Indigenous Affairs,” 155.
  13. ↑ Hunt, “Experiment in Indigenous Affairs,” 160.
  14. ↑ Hunt, “Experiment in Indigenous Affairs,” 158-159
  15. ↑ Piper, “NEW ARRANGEMENTS,” 287.
  16. ↑ ATNS, “Indigenous Coordination”.
  17. ↑ Lawrence, Rebecca; Gibson, Chris (2007). "Obliging Indigenous Citizens?". Cultural Studies. 21:4-5 (4–5): 670–671. doi:10.1080/09502380701279002. S2CID   143771005.
  18. 1 2 Sullivan, Belonging Together, 34.
  19. 1 2 3 4 5 6 Lawrence and Gibson, “OBLIGING INDIGENOUS,” 650-671.
  20. ↑ Smith, Diane E.; Hunt, Janet (2007). "Indigenous Community Governance Project: Year two research findings". ANU Centre for Aboriginal Economic Policy Research (CAEPR).
  21. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Smith and Hunt, “Indigenous Community,” 37.
  22. ↑ Sullivan, Patrick (2013). "Disenchantment, Normalisation and Public Value: Taking the Long View in Australian Indigenous Affairs". The Asia Pacific Journal of Anthropology. 14 (4): 353–369. doi:10.1080/14442213.2013.804871. S2CID   144025766.
  23. 1 2 3 4 5 Sullivan, “Disenchantment,” 353-369.
  24. ↑ Sullivan, Belonging Together, 37-48.
  25. ↑ Hunt, “Experiment in Indigenous Affairs,” 159.
  26. ↑ Piper, “NEW ARRANGEMENTS,” 292.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.