Table of Contents
In recent decades, applied demography has emerged as a sub-field of demography partly in response to a growing demand from governments and private sector interests to better understand the implications of population trends for public policy and business strategy (Murdock and Ellis 1991; Siegel 2002). While in essence, this involves the practical application of demographic materials and methods (Siegel 2002: 2), the emphasis is on gaining knowledge of the consequences and concomitants of change in the size of populations, their distribution, composition and characteristics, so as to guide decision-making related to planning and the distribution of public or private sector goods and services for current and future use (Murdock and Ellis 1991: 6). This is precisely the empirical input that industry, government and Indigenous stakeholders have begun to identify as contributing to meaningful discussions about options for integrating the activities of mining operations with broader social and economic development goals in mine hinterlands. Accordingly, a push for profiling regional social and economic conditions has emerged from a coalition of these interests (Harvey and Brereton 2005).
Underlying this push, the current political economy of minerals development across remote Australia attempts to ensure that Indigenous peoples and communities increase their capacity to participate in bouyant regional economies that are stimulated by the ‘super-cycle’ of global demand for mineral products (Harvey 2002a; Hooke 2007). Overall, the aim is to establish initiatives that will secure sustainable economies for mining regions beyond the operational life of mines, making full use of local labour (Harvey 2002a, 2004). From a minerals sector perspective, this reflects the growing influence of corporate social responsibility and a corresponding recognition of necessary foundations for a social licence to operate (Trebeck, Chapter 6). From an Indigenous perspective, it reflects the assertion of a legitimate stake in directing regional development options, not least on Aboriginal lands. And from a government perspective, it reflects a window of opportunity to realise policy goals of Closing the Gap via the activities and economies of scale induced by minerals development.
One way in which these varied aspirations are pursued is through negotiated mining and other region-specific agreements. In the early 1970s, there was considerable optimism that mining agreements, many with significant financial benefit packages, would make a difference to the marginal economic situation of Indigenous beneficiaries (Altman 1983). However, research to date indicates that for a complex set of reasons, Indigenous economic status has changed little in subsequent years—dependence on government transfer payments across remote Australia remains high, while the economic profile of Indigenous people residing in the vicinity of major long-life mines is often indistinguishable from that of Indigenous people elsewhere in remote Australia (Taylor 1999, 2003; Taylor and Scambary 2005).
This situation partly reflects the incapacity of Indigenous community organisations and individuals to cope with the impacts of large-scale operations and take advantage from them. Equally, though, such organisations and the people they represent may have ambivalent responses to the potential cultural assimilation implied by their increasing integration into a market economy and its associated monetisation of many aspects of social life. A third key factor has been the attitudes and responses of both mining companies and governments, and their inability to comprehend and respond to the scale of historic Aboriginal disadvantage and strain on the social fabric of societies so radically affected by colonisation.
As well as these issues, it is now also clear that the content of many agreements has been far from optimal and that substantial legal, policy and institutional obstacles remain in the way of favourable negotiated terms related to mining activity on Aboriginal lands (Altman, Chapter 2; O’Faircheallaigh 2006). One issue in particular that has compromised the quality (or effectiveness) of agreements, is the general lack of attention paid to initiatives and activities required to give effect to stated provisions. The result, in many instances, is a failure of implementation for want of adequate resources and structures to ensure that this occurs and is sustained (O’Faircheallaigh 2002a).
Viewed historically, this general failure of agreements to monitor progress and impacts may be seen as a lesson once learnt, then subsequently lost, since the prototype for monitoring emerged as a key recommendation of the Fox Inquiry as far back as 1977. This inquiry called for the establishment of a five-year monitoring study of the social impact of uranium mining on Aborigines that was undertaken by the Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies. While this study openly eschewed what it referred to as the ‘technocratic tradition’ and the hard-edged statistical approach of the policy sciences, it nonetheless aimed to generate as much baseline data as possible against which to measure social change. In line with a movement towards what was described as a ‘political’ or ‘community development’ model of social impact assessment (Ross 1990: 12), this was to be developed as a computer-based store of relevant information that could answer numerous questions for Aboriginal communities, government agencies, mining companies and researchers, and be functional for decades to come (Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies 1984).
While the scope of this study was sound enough, it is interesting to note that almost 20 years later when faced with the task of profiling the employment, income, education, housing and health status of the Aboriginal population in Kakadu National Park and acquiring some sense of how these might have changed over the previous 20 years, the Kakadu Region Social Impact Study had no readily available and comprehensive statistical information upon which to determine its case. This was due to a failure of the Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies study to provide adequate quality data for the regional population, even as a baseline, let alone in the form of ongoing monitoring that was initially called for (Kesteven 1986).
Partly in response to such issues, and in the emerging context of corporate social responsibility, there has been a concerted effort in recent years by some major mining companies to address aspects of this regional information void with support for regional profiling in the East Kimberley (Taylor 2004a), the Pilbara (Taylor and Scambary 2005) and the West Kimberley (Taylor 2006b). Wider recognition of this requirement by Indigenous stakeholders is also indicated by land council and native title representative body support for such activity in the case of the Kakadu Social Impact Study (1997b), as well as in the regional studies listed above.
Such profiles are an important adjunct to the formulation and subsequent monitoring of company and Indigenous stakeholder actions designed to increase Indigenous participation in regional economies. Specifically, they help in three ways: by establishing the quantum of needs for regional planning (both present and future), by identifying particular opportunities and constraints for enhanced participation in regional economies, and by providing the demographic backdrop for assessment of the effectiveness of any actions undertaken, whether this is done using conventional or alternative approaches to the evaluation of outcomes from mining agreements (O’Faircheallaigh 2002b: 18–22).
Furthermore, with a focus on the demographic composition and population dynamics of mine hinterlands, regional profiles can assist in the identification of targets to meet particular objectives, particularly in providing an overall sense of the scale of potential undertakings. This adoption of targets for improving the situation of Indigenous peoples is an issue that has recently drawn the attention of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Justice Commissioner in discussions over the Australian government’s reporting framework on Indigenous disadvantage (Calma 2005). Casting this in a human rights approach, the argument presented is for accountability in moving towards the achievement of identified goals within a defined time frame. In development discourse this invokes the principle of ‘progressive realisation’ and takes reporting to a new level by requiring that stakeholders make justification if there is no improvement in certain agreed benchmarks, or where there is improvement, to establish whether the progress achieved is at a sufficient rate (Calma 2005). While the levels and rates involved to assess such progress require regular calibration, fundamentally they require the development of a baseline from which to measure change.