Why the Productivity Commission thinks a Voice is needed to Close the Gap

The federal government’s commitment to partnering with Indigenous communities lacks accountability and is struggling against bureaucratic indifference, according to a new report by the Productivity Commission.

And the report makes the case for much stronger bodies to hold governments to account, such as the proposed Voice to Parliament.

The interim report comes with impeccable Liberal pedigree. The inquiry was commissioned by then-treasurer Josh Frydenberg just before the last federal election, examines the Morrison government’s landmark 2020 national agreement on Closing the Gap with states and territories and the coalition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peak organisations — one of the best policy achievements of the Coalition’s time in office. The interim report is one of the commission’s last under outgoing chair and former Liberal staffer Michael Brennan.

The agreement has as its core a goal of fully integrating Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities into the process of designing the policies that affect them (called “priority reform 1”) — particularly in key Closing the Gap areas such as health, education, justice and economic opportunity — and of partnering with communities in delivering those policies (priority reform 2). That demands a huge change for existing state and federal government bureaucracies (priority reform 3), building capacity within Indigenous communities to effectively partner with governments, and radically improving data collection and sharing (priority reform 4).

So far, not so good, according to the PC. Too many bureaucrats are only half-hearted about pursuing real partnerships: “There appears to be an assumption that ‘governments know best’ … Too many government agencies are implementing versions of shared decision-making that involve consulting with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people on a predetermined solution, rather than collaborating on the problem and co-designing a solution.”

Existing policy forums “currently function as forums for discussion, with little if any authority for shared decision-making”.

In implementation, governments “have taken few tangible steps to strengthen the various sectors to increase the proportion of services delivered by [Aboriginal community-controlled organisations]”.

“Where services are being shifted from mainstream service providers to ACCOs [Aboriginal community-controlled organisations], governments often rigidly apply generic, pre-existing models of service and program design.”

Only the ACT and NSW are actually tracking how much funding is allocated to ACCOs v non-Indigenous NGOs.

Nor is there any evidence that governments are embracing the goals of the agreement at a system-wide level. There is a “stark absence of whole-of-government or organisation-level strategies for driving and delivering transformation in line with priority reform 3”.

What changes have occurred within white bureaucracies have been “small-scale, individual actions (such as cultural capability training and workforce strategies to increase public sector employment of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people) rather than system-level changes to policies and practices”.

And so far, “There has been limited progress on putting in place an independent mechanism that will support, monitor and report on the transformation of government organisations in most jurisdictions.”

In fact, the lack of serious accountability mechanisms is a particular concern of the PC. It complains that existing mechanisms for holding governments to account “are not sufficiently independent, do not contain timely and appropriate consequences for failure, [and] are not informed by high-quality evaluation.”

It wants an accountability mechanism that would not just scrutinise government transformation in priority reform 3, but all four areas:

If the independent mechanism was to take a broader role, its primary role would be to hold governments to account for commitments made and the services they fund, and provide system-level advice for improved policies, programs and services affecting Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. This would help to ensure that governments understand and respond to the views, aspirations and interests of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people and enable self-determination.

Starting to sound familiar? While the PC doesn’t make a specific draft recommendation about the Voice to Parliament, and the Voice may not be sufficient to deliver all the goals of an accountability body, it concludes: “The proposed Voice would be a permanent body to make representations to the Australian Parliament and the executive government on legislation and policy of significance to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. In undertaking these functions, a Voice could contribute to accountability and oversight of matters affecting Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people.”

What the PC has done is strengthen the case for a Voice to Parliament by pointing out an additional benefit. Not merely would the Voice provide momentum and advice for “system-level changes to policies and practices” — that is, integrating Indigenous communities into the primary engine room of policy in the Commonwealth, the Parliament — but also an additional independent mechanism to help hold governments to account for effective implementation of the agreement.

It’s all there, in chapter and verse, from the country’s premier independent economic advisory body, in a Liberal-commissioned report into a Liberal government agreement.