• Specific Year
    Any

Kristiansen, Kari M S; Cox, Kerrianne --- "Shared Responsibility Agreements: Legally or Morally Binding?" [2005] IndigLawB 26; (2005) 6(11) Indigenous Law Bulletin 8

Shared Responsibility Agreements: Legally or Morally Binding?

by Kari M S Kristiansen and Kerrianne Cox

In 2004 the Australian Government outlined the new federal arrangements for Indigenous affairs based on five key principles:

collaboration between Australian Government agencies;
leadership from ministers, senior agency staff and Indigenous representative bodies;
flexibility in the allocation of funds to meet emerging needs and priorities;
a focus on need at the regional level taking into account the diverse circumstances in different regions; and
enhanced accountability to ensure that Indigenous people receive value for money from programs directed to them.[1]

The framework for the new arrangements aims to improve upon the organisational structure of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission (‘ATSIC’) which was abolished in March 2005.[2]

A key development in the new Australian government policy is an emphasis on direct engagement with Indigenous people through Shared Responsibility Agreements.

Our new approach is based on accepting responsibility – by governments, as well as Indigenous communities themselves... Guiding whole-of-government service delivery with Indigenous representatives will be Partnership Agreements developed at the regional level and shared responsibility agreements at the local and community level. The new approach will require communities to offer commitments such as improving school attendance in return for Government funding initiatives.[3]

This approach exemplifies the notion of ‘mutual obligation’ as a key principle of federal government policy in the Indigenous sector.

Since 1 July 2004, 52 Shared Responsibility Agreements involving 43 Indigenous communities have been completed across Australia in relation to initiatives addressing nutrition, community safety, business support, skills development and a range of other community needs. In return, communities have made commitments such as improving school attendance, controlling substance misuse and being involved in youth recreation activities. The initial agreements are generally single-issue with an intention in the longer term to develop more complex and comprehensive agreements encompassing the entire planning framework in a community.[4]

What is a Shared Responsibility Agreement?

A Shared Responsibility Agreement is a direct agreement between:

an individual, family, community or others; and
relevant partners such as governments, communities and other stakeholders.

The inaugural Shared Responsibility Agreement in the Mulan community of Western Australia involved an undertaking from community residents to tackle the high incidence of trachoma in the community by showering daily, washing their faces twice a day and reducing rubbish in the community environment. In return, government agencies agreed to install infrastructure for the storage and distribution of fuel.[5]

Enforcing shared responsibilities

A Shared Responsibility Agreement is not in itself a legally binding agreement between identified parties enforceable by law. Neither is a Shared Responsibility Agreement necessarily a contract for services or a grant of funding. It is a good faith agreement designed to provide greater flexibility and responsiveness to individuals, families and communities, through a range of transactions concluded by mutual undertaking.

The mechanisms for accountability by the Australian Government lie in the principle of ‘good faith’:

Say we come to an agreement for a pool to be put in under the ‘no school, no pool’ rule and the community says ‘thanks very much’, they take the pool and then they say, ‘actually we don't care if the kids go to school or not’, what can we do? I mean you can hardly dig a pool up. So I'm approaching this on a good faith basis that Indigenous communities will live up to their agreements and I can assure you the Commonwealth will.[6]

Developing a Shared Responsibility Agreement

The elements involved in developing a Shared Responsibility Agreement are:

knowledge of priority needs within the operating environment, eg improved sporting amenities in the community, an employment activity at an outstation, signage at a place of cultural significance identified by a specific clan group;
some ideas about how to meet those needs and effect positive changes, eg start a small eco-tourism business by erecting a walking trail;
identify the individuals within the operating environment who have the authority to enter into an agreement, eg outstation residents, clan elders, youth group;
match needs and ideas with possible ways to contribute, eg funds for materials may be matched by commitment of labour and undertaking to participate in formal training.

The process is negotiated with government agencies and other stakeholders through the regional Indigenous Coordination Centres.[7]

Case Study: Beagle Bay

Beagle Bay (Ngarlan Burr) is a small Aboriginal community on the west coast of the Dampier Peninsula in the remote north-west Kimberley, Western Australia. In colonial terms, Beagle Bay started life as a Catholic mission around 1890. During the 1900s, Beagle Bay became home to many Aboriginal people who, as children, were separated from their families in the east Kimberley region, as a result of past government policies. In 2001 Beagle Bay was included in the National Library of Australia’s Bringing Them Home Oral History Project.

Today there are about 180 permanent residents of Beagle Bay including approximately 119 children and youth. There are continuing challenges for the community in terms of quality of life, eg a high level of child protection notifications, under-resourcing and neglect by past governments and a chronic history of maladministration. In recent years a disturbing pattern of suicides within the community was significantly arrested through community responses.

A key challenge for the community of Beagle Bay is to self-manage without undue reliance on government intervention. The majority of residents have elected to ‘create a just and fair society’ in Beagle Bay - the underpinning theme of the draft Shared Responsibility Agreement - through a set of agreed activities directly linked to their identified needs rather than government-driven solutions. The agreed activities focus on three key areas of community activity underpinned by a set of sub-agreements, for example:

Agreed activity:

Resource allocation

Example of a sub-agreement:

Development of a Service Agreement with outstations in relation to Beagle Bay as a resource centre

As the Chairwoman of the Beagle Bay community, Kerrianne Cox says:

I was born in Derby in 1975 because there were no facilities in Beagle Bay. My mother was 17-years-old – she came from the ‘system’ (Ward of the State). When we were allowed to leave the hospital, we came back to Beagle Bay where we lived with Dad in a one-room hut. My mum used to give me a bath under a tap in a basin, before the sun went down and it got cold. It was a hard life but we were lucky because we had an outside toilet of our own. The rest of the people on the reserve used an ablution block. There were still big mob people living in the bush, in camps, in fishing places. All the Nyul Nyul people used to live on the fringe of the reserve. I was in the assimilation camp, might as well call it. We weren’t really allowed to mix with the ‘traditional blacks’, as they were called then. When I learned how to walk, I used to take off, do my rounds in the reserve. When my sister Boudgie (Devena) came along, I had a little partner.



My grandfather was one of the first to get a house, which he bought from the Church for £500. We thought it was a mansion. The house was a symbol of entering into a ‘community’. Grandfather Dicky Cox (my grandfather Paul Cox’s brother) became the Chairperson of Beagle Bay Community Inc. The Church handed the land back to the people. We had moved off the reserve! My people saw it as a way forward where they would have authority over their own lives. Thirty years have passed since the incorporation of Beagle Bay Community Inc. in my birth year. We’ve now got what we call a ‘community’.



However in many ways it has been a hollow dream. The truth is that Beagle Bay is an example of an Aboriginal community failed by government over three decades. In the course of my life, Beagle Bay has stopped growing.



Our own people got caught in the traps set by government, who said ‘See you later, goodbye.’ There was no investment of human capital, only funding. No one to show us the way. No mentorship. We were willing to try. We were left with bad habits. The dark side of human nature prevailed over the goodness too many times. The 'system' failed us. In turn, some of us have failed our people.



The SRA is about us taking stock. Where are we? Where do we want to get to? What do we need? Let's stop blaming and start rejuvenating. Some of these issues have been around for a long time but we've never been able to tackle them strategically with government. We can now negotiate customised programs and solutions, rather than applying for funding to a program that we have to try and adapt to our community but which may not be relevant or workable.[8]

The Shared Responsibility Agreement framework has attracted criticism on several grounds, including that:

It undermines the integrity of a rights-based system which accounts for an individual’s relative degree of incapacity to participate in society through specific mechanisms such as the provision of unemployment benefits. Politically rhetorical statements such as that ‘unconditional welfare will become a thing of the past’ serve to reinforce a concern that governments may abrogate their basic responsibilities towards individuals by imposing conditions on entitlements such as welfare. Linkages between the Community Development Employment Projects (‘CDEP’) and Shared Responsibility Agreements are already under formal discussion;[9]
The safety net of individual and collective rights and entitlements can become a secondary focus in a setting where specific agreements are negotiated at a community level without broader checks and balances;
The complex nature of Indigenous disadvantage may become oversimplified by creating agreements compelling behavioural change by individuals and communities in a relatively undefined framework which is contingent on a level of collective participation that may not be realistically achievable;
It is a ‘patronising and coercive’[10] process in which choices at a community level may be compromised by the need to meet government expectations in order to obtain public infrastructure, eg a fuel bowser;
It is racially discriminatory because of the onus it places specifically upon Indigenous communities to strike agreements in an environment of potentially unequal bargaining power resulting in an outcome that may not be ‘fair or mutual’.[11] This view can be rebutted where there is evidence of negotiation and consent at a community level in setting the terms of the agreement such as in Mulan and Beagle Bay; and
It places the principle of ‘mutual obligation’ at risk of bastardisation when agreements such as Mulan – fuel bowsers and trachoma strategies – are not based on a logical and balanced set of rights and responsibilities, possibly resulting in a contrived attempt at social engineering by government decision makers.[12]

These criticisms did not dissuade the community of Beagle Bay from entering into a Shared Responsibility Agreement with the Australian Government. As Kerrianne Cox says:

The SRA can only improve our community. We have been chronically under-resourced for three decades since we became a 'community'. Our dependence on government schemes such as CDEP is not an acceptable lifestyle for our people. We need to start asking and answering hard questions about how a one-size-fits-all 'welfare economy' is promoting self-determination for individuals. The way to care for those who genuinely need support is not to keep everybody entrenched in the welfare system as a whole.



Let's do a deal with government about how we can meet the needs of our people in a range of imaginative and resourceful ways. Those deals - SRAs - are not patronising when we are properly negotiating them with government. Neither are they coercive. Do critics of the SRA framework believe that Aboriginal people are not capable of negotiating with government in their own interests?



There will always be tensions about what is fair and reasonable to expect from government and what is 'icing on the cake'. In an ideal world, there needs to be lots of recreational opportunities and amenities in community settings. But it is not a human right to have a swimming pool in your community.



In the SRA process, we are trying to get resonance between individuals and communities and government. It's about getting on an even keel and doing real business together. When we were captive to the system of ATSIC Regional Councils, the internal controls were lacking and there were real concerns about fairness in decision making. What's more, there was no mutuality and very little balance in the bargaining power between the Regional Council and the people. The SRA process has unclogged these channels and set up a powerful alternative - self-advocacy and direct negotiation with government. We're not complaining in Beagle Bay.

The Shared Responsibility Agreement process sets up non-legal imperatives derived from individuals, groups and communities identifying and advancing their strategic aspirations outside of a funding regime or externally-driven generic planning mechanism. The approach raises complex questions about government and community accountability, the role of ‘mutual obligation’ in a rights-based system and the efficacy of removing systemic disadvantage through negotiating agreements about behavioural change. The legitimacy of the Shared Responsibility Agreement process will ultimately be tested by the extent to which it contributes to enhanced quality of life for Indigenous Australians.

Kari M S Kristiansen, BA LLB LLM is the Shared Responsibility Broker for the Beagle Bay community. Kari is a consultant to the Indigenous sector with demonstrated expertise in policy implementation in a community context. Kerrianne Cox is the Chairwoman of the Beagle Bay community. She is also an internationally renowned performing artist. Her signature song Beagle Bay Dreaming has brought her beloved home and country into the hearts and minds of people all over the world. In 2003 Kerrianne was awarded the Centenary Medal by the Australian government for service to her country.


[1] Submission to Senate Select Committee on the Administration of Indigenous Affairs, Parliament of Australia, Canberra, 9 August 2004, 2 (Office of Indigenous Policy Coordination, Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs).

[2] On 16 March 2005 Parliament passed the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission Amendment Bill 2005 repealing provisions of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission Act 1989 (Cth), and in particular abolishing ATSIC. The legislation received the Royal Assent and was proclaimed with effect from 24 March 2005. The legislation also provides that Regional Councils will cease on 30 June 2005.

[3] The Hon Amanda Vanstone, Indigenous Affairs Minister, ‘Australian Government Changes to Indigenous Affairs Services Commence Tomorrow’, (Press Release, 30 June 2004).

[4] The Hon Amanda Vanstone, Indigenous Affairs Minister, ‘Sharing Responsibility: Agreements Target Exceeded’, (Press Release, 27 May 2005).

[5] Kathryn Shine, ‘Blacks lured to sign joint contracts’, The Australian (Sydney), 9 April 2005, 6.

[6] ABC radio, ‘Senator Amanda Vanstone’, Speaking Out, 20 March 2005 at <www.abc.net.au/message/radio/speaking/stories/s1324685.htm> at 16 June 2005.

[7] See <www.oipc.gov.au> for comprehensive information about the bureaucratic structure under the new policy arrangements.

[8] For example, in the Mulan community the key elements of the SRA – fuel bowsers and strategic responses to trachoma – had been under discussion for a considerable period prior to the formalisation of the SRA.

[9] Commonwealth Department of Employment and Workplace Relations, ‘Building on Success: CDEP Discussion Paper 2005 – Community Development Employment Projects (CDEP) Programme, (Discussion Paper, 2005) 20.

[10] ABC Radio,–‘Government makes ‘shared responsibility’ deal with WA Indigenous community’, The World Today, 9 December 2004.

[11] Mick Dodson quoted in Patricia Karvelas and Amanda Banks, ‘We are just saving our kids – Aboriginal community leaders slam face-wash critics’, The Australian (Sydney), 10 December 2004, 1.

[12] Pat Dodson and Noel Pearson, ‘The dangers of mutual obligation’, The Age (Melbourne), 15 December 2004, 17.

Download

No downloadable files available