Without pre-empting the directions that discussions at this conference might take, we conclude with just a few complex issues of statistics and Indigenous public policy for consideration over the next two days.
Historically, the NATSISS instrument was established at a time when there was a recognised dearth of official statistics to document the socioeconomic situation of Indigenous Australians, though this is not to deny the importance of the five-yearly census—especially for comparison with the general population. In recent years, the ABS has greatly enhanced its Indigenous household survey and census program to the extent that in the 13 years 1999 to 2011, only three—2000, 2007 and 2009—are survey free.
Despite this, there appears to be a growing and worrying mismatch between the broad direction that Indigenous affairs policy is taking on the one hand (focusing effort on partnerships with specific communities and regions), and the availability of non-census derived information. In particular, 2002 NATSISS data are not amenable to disaggregation to the regional level, unlike 1994 NATSIS data. This suggests that recent data might be of less value to Indigenous community and regional end-users and that comparative analysis between 1994 and 2002 will be impossible at the regional level.
This raises important issues of statistical accountability and the politics of statistics. From 1990–2005, there have been checks and balances on the increased ABS activity in this area, provided by its alliance with ATSIC. It is noteworthy that under s.7 of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission Act 1989, the ABS and ATSIC had a statutory relationship and that ATSIC was legally required to develop policy proposals to meet Indigenous needs and priorities from the national to the regional level. ATSIC was also required to assist, advise and cooperate with Indigenous communities, organisations and individuals, again to the regional level. Irrespective of ATSIC’s capacity to effectively address such complex statutory functions, as a national representative organisation it did provide a degree of institutional authorisation to the Indigenous data collection and analysis activities of the ABS.
Today, we have a new partnership approach in Indigenous affairs, but we lack the statistical framework to assess its effectiveness. This situation might suit governments, but it also has the potential to entrench power and economic inequalities, especially for those Indigenous communities that might want to sign off on agreements in good faith and with the expectation of information to assess their effectiveness. We have already alluded to the emerging problems inherent in the absence of NATSISS data at the regional level. It is also clear that there is an emerging hierarchy of privileged access to 2002 NATSISS information, with the ABS being uniquely positioned in accessing Main Unit Record File (MURF) data at levels of disaggregation that are just not available publicly. [3]Others, like the Productivity Commission, can purchase data, and academics can use the CURF without charge. Indigenous organisations and individuals appear least well placed to access such information. Such issues raise a number of important questions, with which we end:
Is a survey instrument, like the NATSISS, sufficiently at arms-length from governments of the day?
Bearing in mind the urgent need to track Indigenous wellbeing over time, what precise role will the 2008 NATSISS play in this process?
Will 2008 NATSISS outputs, available in 2010, be helpful in adaptively managing the new approach in Indigenous affairs?
Given that the 2002 NATSISS sample size was too small for regional disaggregation of findings, should the ABS look to augment the sample size in future?
In the absence of a national Indigenous representative organisation, what institution will be empowered to ensure that official statistical information is collected that will help Indigenous communities and regions plan their futures?