Learning from the Past, Thinking about the Future

UWS Chancellor John Phillips & Janina Gawler, Rio Tinto Aboriginal Foundation, at conference dinner

Executive Summary

Philanthropic and corporate bodies in Australia are increasingly receiving approaches from - and are responding positively to requests for financial and other support for Aboriginal communities and projects.

Although the private sector has the flexibility and capacity to support innovative approaches, there is currently little collaboration between donor organisations and growing concern about the volume, variable quality and sustainability of many of the proposals being put forward.

It may be difficult for philanthropic and corporate organisations with limited experience of working with Aboriginal communities to determine which proposals to support, and how to measure their effectiveness.

Recent media attention has focussed on the social problems, poor health, poverty and 'welfare dependency' of Aboriginal communities and the apparent failure of past efforts to help communities achieve higher levels of economic development. Little attention has been directed to understanding why these efforts have failed.

As private organisations become increasingly involved in this area, it is critically important that they become aware of the risks and difficulties they will confront and that the finite pool of funds available be applied to the greatest effort to achieve meaningful benefits for Aboriginal people.

This discussion paper explores some of the issues which were debated in a conference which drew together philanthropic and corporate donors, indigenous and non-indigenous speakers and international speakers. The conference was held in Sydney in July 2002.

Background

Over the past decade there has been growing awareness in the philanthropic, business and broader
Australian communities of the importance of progressing issues - such as health and economic
empowerment - that are fundamental to achieving reconciliation between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians.

Philanthropic and corporate sectors have responded positively to an increasing number of funding proposals and initiatives aimed at benefiting Australia's Indigenous people. This is an important development which offers many opportunities to support Indigenous Australians in practical ways and contribute to meaningful, long-term benefits and change. These sectors can play positive and innovative roles in areas that have been traditionally dominated by Government.

Indeed, the non-Government sector is well placed to support innovative approaches, whereas Government bodies may lack flexibility, skills or capacity to tackle some of the underlying structural issues. Further, there is recognition by some business interests, particularly in the resources sector, that it makes commercial sense to improve community relations and invest in initiatives that will address Indigenous socio-economic disadvantage in the long-term.

For Indigenous communities, there is an increasing desire to secure support independent of governments and awareness that financial assistance may be available from private sources. Prominent Indigenous spokespersons have actively lobbied the philanthropic and business communities with some success, and have developed alliances and strong personal relationships in these sectors.

It is crucial that the business and philanthropic organisations willing to respond and contribute in this area develop a critical awareness of the difficulties they face and the risks of creating even greater problems if their current efforts fail.

Welfare dependency and economic independence

Aboriginal people and communities have sought to establish enterprises and build economic independence over many years. It is however, important to note that Aboriginal people only gained the opportunity to incorporate and to manage their own affairs as recently as the 1970s.

The concepts of 'self-determination' and 'self-management' are relatively new, and were only introduced under the Whitlam Labor Government.

Thirty years later, Aboriginal communities still continue to battle through an educational shortfall, lack of employment opportunities and poor community infrastructure such as housing, roads, sewerage and water. They still have little access to private finance and public funding can only be accessed on a piece-meal, short-term basis through a maze of Government bureaucracies and funding programs.

The Community Development Employment Projects (CDEP) Scheme (broadly equivalent to the recent 'work for the dole' scheme) began in 1977 as an alternative to the payment of welfare benefits and as a means of community development. More than 270 community organisations now participate in the CDEP scheme.

Similarly, many Indigenous community leaders, including the late Charles Perkins AO, have long advocated economic independence. A series of National Indigenous Business and Economic Conferences (NIBEC) were held during the early 1990s. Since the advent of land rights and native title a number of successful enterprises have begun operation and there are many examples of development agreements which aim to enhance employment opportunities and benefit local Aboriginal communities.

A Round Table on the way forward for public fundraising

The Whitlam Institute, the Fred Hollows Foundation and Reconciliation Australia convened a conference in July 2002 to address these issues.
The Learning from the Past, Thinking about the Future - Partnerships between Indigenous Australia and the Philanthropic and Corporate Community Conference, was held in Sydney, Australia 7-9 July.

Bringing business and community closer together

Learning from the past . .

Despite a myriad of interventions and programs aimed at addressing Indigenous socio-economic
disadvantage, in many respects the gap between indigenous and other Australians has widened.
There are many who feel that these endeavours have failed miserably. Problems continue to
proliferate, evidenced by high levels of unemployment, poor health status, declining
education outcomes, domestic violence, substance misuse and so on.

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people have a lower life expectancy than any other Indigenous minority in a first world country. While the life expectancy gap between Indigenous and non-Indigenous people in Australia is 15-20 years, in New Zealand, it is 5-6 years, in Canada it is 7 years, and in the USA, it is only 3.5 years. Over the past 30 years, life expectancy has improved dramatically in most countries, but life expectancy for Indigenous Australians lags well behind a number of developing countries.

In Australia, Indigenous death rates from diabetes are 12 times higher for men and 17 times higher for women, compared with non-Indigenous people. Unemployment for Indigenous people is about 26%, compared with 8% for the non-Indigenous community; less than one-third of Aboriginal students complete secondary school, compared with a national retention rate of 70%; and the Indigenous home ownership rate is about 30% compared with 70% for the non-Indigenous community. In addition, Aboriginal people are far more likely to live in poor and overcrowded housing, without essential services .

Why, despite good intentions, have programs for Indigenous people often failed to achieve lasting benefits?

Many programs targeted at Indigenous communities have generally been intended to assist 'under-developed' communities to become developed'. Regrettably few people question the validity of such programs, and why they failed to achieve the desired outcomes. A number of assumptions have underpinned such initiatives, for example:

The belief that development can be engineered. Programs and projects are designed to 'bring' development to those amongst whom it is lacking;
Development is about delivery of resources - financial, equipment, technical skills, political clout, even a particular approach to life;
Development projects are generally short-term, time-bound and limited in terms of resources; output is both limited and predictable;
The belief that a successful intervention or project can be replicated - indeed, this is one criterion in judging its success. If it is not replicable elsewhere, it must be of no value;
A project is only successful if it is sustainable. If the effects of the intervention are not sustained, the project will be deemed to have failed; and
The belief that economic development will 'solve' a host of other problems.

The piecemeal 'development project' approach often fails to achieve the benefits expected because of ignorance of social contexts and relationships, poor cross-cultural communication, and lack of knowledge of the history, aspirations and capacity of the Indigenous community concerned. Certain projects may in effect be 'self-sabotaging' if this groundwork is not done and almost certainly will not result in beneficial change unless the community is empowered by participating.

Emerging issues for philanthropic and business donors

At present, most organisations or individuals are operating unilaterally, with little or no reference to each other to achieve cooperation in areas of mutual interest or avoid potential overlaps and duplication. Approaches tend to be ad hoc, and there are already signs of negative competition amongst organisations and projects chasing a limited resource pool. It also appears that little serious attention is being given to the possible implications of this approach for sustaining fundraising needs over the longer term.

Even more critical are the concerns which are increasingly expressed by both philanthropic and business sectors about the sheer volume, variable quality and sustainability of the proposals being put forward. Concern has been expressed about projects which have not produced tangible
outcomes to justify the financial support provided and many have difficulty in differentiating between and 'reality testing' proposals for their relevance and veracity.

There is also some confusion as to the respective roles, standing and credibility of the various organisations and individuals competing for resources. The potential for cynicism and funding fatigue should not be underestimated. These difficulties are likely to generate scepticism about initiatives in the Indigenous arena and discourage current and potential donors.

These problems may resolve themselves over time as donor organisations become more experienced in the field, however in the meantime there is enormous potential to damage the existing goodwill amongst a limited pool of committed supporters and a high risk of negative publicity that could seriously impact on potential donors and the general public. The risks in leaving these issues unaddressed may be avoided if key stakeholders act now to explore options for cooperative action that meet everyone's best interests.

Thinking about the future

The Fred Hollows Foundation, Reconciliation Australia and Whitlam Institute conference provided representatives of the main stakeholders in this debate with an opportunity to identify common areas of interest and cooperation, and consider constructive action.

The conference included structured workshops which identified mechanisms for future cooperation in areas such as: quality assurance; the potential for partnerships in areas of mutual interest and activity; training and technical support; and information sharing. The conference will inaugurate a series of further seminars and discussions based on workshop findings that will be taken up by the conference partners, working in partnership with other organisations.

The Fred Hollows Foundation, Reconciliation Australia and the Whitlam Institute gratefully acknowledge:
Gilbert & Tobin Westpac, Lumbu Foundation Watson Mangioni Solicitors, Rio Tinto Aboriginal Foundation. for their support for the 'Learning from the Past, Thinking about the Future' Conference, Sydney, July 2002.