Oz aims to bite bullet on black empowerment

Australia's Foreign Minister Kevin Rudd appears on the BBC's Andrew Marr Show in London June 12, 2011. REUTERS/Jeff Overs/BBC/Handout (BRITAIN - Tags: POLITICS) FOR EDITORIAL USE ONLY. NOT FOR SALE FOR MARKETING OR ADVERTISING CAMPAIGNS. THIS IMAGE HAS BEEN SUPPLIED BY A THIRD PARTY. IT IS DISTRIBUTED, EXACTLY AS RECEIVED BY REUTERS, AS A SERVICE TO CLIENTS

Australia's Foreign Minister Kevin Rudd appears on the BBC's Andrew Marr Show in London June 12, 2011. REUTERS/Jeff Overs/BBC/Handout (BRITAIN - Tags: POLITICS) FOR EDITORIAL USE ONLY. NOT FOR SALE FOR MARKETING OR ADVERTISING CAMPAIGNS. THIS IMAGE HAS BEEN SUPPLIED BY A THIRD PARTY. IT IS DISTRIBUTED, EXACTLY AS RECEIVED BY REUTERS, AS A SERVICE TO CLIENTS

Published Jul 10, 2011

Share

In February 2008 Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd took an unprecedented step in the West by apologising to the indigenous people of Australia for past injustices, including the forced removal of mixed-race children from their families.

While the apology was applauded all over the world, including in this column, there was scepticism about what was going to be done practically.

Noel Pearson, a respected Aboriginal leader was quoted in an Australian newspaper saying: “Blackfellas will get the words, the whitefellas keep the money.” This summed up the sentiment of most Aborigines at the time.

Fast forward to 2010, Australia has embarked on its own black economic strategy called the Indigenous Economic Development Framework, to make good on the apology. The framework has five key pillars: education and capability; jobs; business and entrepreneurship; financial security and independence and strengthening foundations.

The draft strategy was released on May 24 last year. It is accompanied by action plans over the next few years that will guide the implementation of the policy in all spheres of government in Australia.

What is great about the framework is that it looks at creating the capabilities of the indigenous people from childhood to when they either have to get into the workplace or start their own businesses. The creation of an action plan by the government makes it easier to hold them accountable for the implementation within the targeted timeframe as the responsibility for the policy is squarely in the government’s court.

The notable aspects of the action plan include the plan to work with the private sector to create incentives for the Aborigines to work. There is also a plan to develop demonstration projects that build skills and leadership of indigenous women who are not part of the paid workforce.

This will also include conducting research to better understand the characteristics of those Aborigines not in the labour force. The government invested A$3 million (R20m) over three years to establish the Australian Indigenous Minority Supplier Council pilot project, which directly links certified indigenous businesses with purchasing members in the private sector, as well as in public sector organisations. This allows the programme to deliver tangible results by connecting the seeker of opportunities to the provider of opportunities.

It is quite notable that ownership of existing companies in Australia by Aborigines is excluded from the framework as that would be a big political minefield for the government. Furthermore there are concrete amounts set aside for the implementation of the framework as opposed to variable targets that are a function of budget or revenue.

This may be because the government is the key driver of the policy with no specific obligation placed on the private sector for the delivery of the framework. The monitoring mechanisms over the achievement of the targets are also not quite concrete which may make accountability difficult to enforce.

The biggest challenge facing Australia is measuring the overall impact that the framework has on the intended beneficiaries. Most of the money set aside has to change the mindset of everyone in Australia if there is to be any progress.

The possible entitlement mentality of the Aborigines and the tick box approach by the government and the private sector will have to be avoided.

The other challenge is mobilising the private sector to accept the framework that will make it a pervasive business imperative.

Australian multinationals such as Rio Tinto and BHP Billiton would be far ahead in their practical implementation of indigenous economic empowerment because of their experience here in South Africa. But are other companies there yet?

It is difficult to tell because it seems that the Australian government was careful not to impose any obligations on the private sector which is a different approach from South Africa.

The major demographic difference between Australia and South Africa is that black people in South Africa are a majority while the Aborigines are a minority. - Vuyo Jack

Related Topics: