The call for a move beyond welfare dependency to situations that are economically viable and sustainable in the long term has long been a desire expressed by Indigenous leaders and lies at the core of debates over regional governance and the recognition of native title rights. To the extent that this debate reflects the desire to improve the situation of Indigenous people, Dr Jonas expresses his agreement with this approach. However, the report argues that the process of breaking down Indigenous disadvantage into individual programs rather than being viewed as of a broad systemic nature is too narrow. It reduces Indigenous disadvantage to an individual level, implying that there is a lack of responsibility on the part of Indigenous people who are on welfare, while failing to recognise the broader, systemic nature of Indigenous disadvantage in this country. The report argues that accountability should be required in every aspect of service delivery to Indigenous people, including from governments.
International scrutiny is a form of such accountability of government.
Australia's international human rights obligations require governments to provide services and redress Indigenous disadvantage in culturally appropriate, non-discriminatory manner and with adequate consultation. This is to ensure the effective participation of Indigenous peoples, particularly in the design and delivery of services that affect them. The report argues that the apparently objective aim of ensuring accountability should not be used as a subterfuge for failing to address the legitimate and clearly expressed aspirations of Indigenous people. Dr Jonas notes that despite the apparent acceptance of the importance of this principle governments continue in most instances to act in a manner that conceives of it as aspirational rather than essential. The consequence of this is that Indigenous perspectives and concerns are able to be dismissed or outweighed when there is a contrary or competing set of interests.