“Closing the gap” is the generally accepted umbrella term for efforts to make the experiences of Australia’s indigenous people a closer approximation to those of the non-indigenous population in a variety of socio-economic areas. The goal is to diminish the shameful disparity in incarceration rates, domestic violence, child removal, adequacy of housing and burden of illness — to name but a few items of concern. More formally, “Closing the Gap” refers to a governmental strategy to achieve these goals.
There is good news, bad news and good news.
The first bit of good news is that there is a lot of data comparing the relevant populations over time. The bad news is that, with few exceptions, this data shows that the country is making little progress in closing the gap; in fact, the gap is widening in many spheres. Furthermore, not all of the data is shared with indigenous organizations who wish to use it to devise remedial strategies. But the second bit of good news is that there are now numerous indigenous-led programs aimed at addressing the issues in question.
This is a huge topic, detailed examination of which is beyond the scope of this essay. But it might be helpful in the first instance to draw attention to some of the excellent sources of information relating to the topic:–
Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet
Here one can find basic information on the governmental Closing the Gap strategy.
The National Agreement on Closing the Gap was signed in 2020 by leaders of the States, the Territories and the Australian Local Government Association, as well as the Convener of the Coalition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peak Organisations (Coalition of Peaks). It was updated in 2022.
Essentially, the Agreement concerns the bureaucratic infrastructure underpinning practical strategies to close the gap. It lists 4 Priority Reforms and 17 Socio-economic Outcomes with targets to be met by 2031. Importantly, it calls for more involvement of indigenous people in decision-making and for greater use of non-governmental organizations.
Productivity Commission
The National Agreement on Closing the Gap enjoins the Productivity Commission to undertake every three years a review of progress in implementing the Priority Reforms and achieving the stipulated targets.
In 2024 the Commission released its first Review of the National Agreement on Closing the Gap. This very long document in two volumes is intelligently written and remarkably sensitive in its appreciation of the perspective of Australia’s First Nations people. It is a damning indictment of lackluster Government action. To its credit, the Commission does not mince its words; the opening paragraphs of the Executive Summary in particular go straight to the core of the matter in no uncertain terms. I exhort you to at least read this 8-page Executive Summary. The entire document is eminently readable, though, and certainly repays delving into more deeply. The more succinct fact sheet makes powerful statements about what still needs to be done in reforming the bureaucratic processes.
The Commission also publishes a Closing the Gap Dashboard which provides a snapshot of how the country is tracking with respect to the Priority Reforms and Socio-economic Outcomes set forth in the Agreement.
Close the Gap Campaign
The Close the Gap Campaign is a campaign run by a coalition of non-governmental organizations. Whereas the Productivity Commission has no teeth, merely examining data and making recommendations, the Close the Gap Campaign coalition examines data, makes recommendations and actively engages in numerous on-the-ground projects. It produces “First Nations-centred, strengths-based” (their words) annual Reports containing progress reviews, case studies of indigenous programs and recommendations for the future. If you read only one document about closing the gap, I suggest it be one of these.
Australian Indigenous HealthInfoNet
The Australian Indigenous HealthInfoNet produces annual Overviews of the health status of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. These Overviews are comprehensive and detailed, showing areas of progress as well as areas of backsliding.
There are many other organizations and reports relevant to the terrain, but the above should suffice to get one’s bearings.
Now for some comments…
… on the National Agreement on Closing the Gap
While the National Agreement is a significant statement which explicitly acknowledges areas needing to be addressed, I do not think it is ambitious enough. I think it is a mistake to set targets in terms of percentage improvements to be realized by a certain date. It is a seductive enough idea, but it places the emphasis more on incremental improvements within the indigenous population than on lessening the disparity between the indigenous and non-indigenous populations. The focus on closing the gap is lost. Not only that, but no account is taken of trends that could lead us to misconstrue the gap. There is no point in having reference points anchored in the past when homelessness (for example) is an increasingly serious problem in the nation as a whole. Furthermore, setting a date in the future removes the motivation for politicians and bureaucrats to take immediate action. They can rest easy knowing they have time on their hands. Imagine a coach telling a team who only won one match last year to aim to win two matches this year. No, one aims to win the lot and pulls out all stops in the attempt.
It might be argued that the strategy is designed to set realistically achievable targets, but I think this is largely illusory. (While the reports of the Productivity Commission and the Close the Gap Campaign do not go quite this far, their findings do cast doubt on the usefulness of this approach.) Even if a target were eventually met by the stipulated date, retrograde results can (and do) occur in the interim, which is unacceptable.
Despite good intentions, then, the Agreement adopts a half-hearted approach. It bespeaks a lack of will to really get in there and get the job done. You only have to look at wartime endeavors to see what a society can do, and do expeditiously, when the motivation is strong enough. This is the sort of creative, audacious, no-holds-barred commitment that is required now. Regrettably, it appears our governments are largely unimaginative and impotent when it comes to confronting current existential threats in any but a punitive way. Here I refer in particular to indigenous adult incarceration, youth detention and child removal.
It is important to note that the “drivers” and “factors” mentioned in the Agreement are restricted to things that are quantifiable. In most cases they are somewhat farther down the track from the really crucial stuff; viz, the causes of the disparity. These causes are often psychological, social, legal or cultural in nature and not easily quantified. Yet, without a comprehensive, deep and nuanced understanding of them, we will always struggle to meet certain “targets”.
We get closer to the causes in the “Data Development” portion of the description of each Socio-economic Outcome, and the items listed provide good food for thought. However, the document merely recommends that the parties “explore options to measure and report” these items, pretty much on a piecemeal basis, with no attempt to place them within a unifying scheme explicating their interconnectedness.
Outcome 15 prescribes that “Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people maintain a distinctive cultural, spiritual, physical and economic relationship with their land and waters”. But the measurables here are all economic ones, couched in terms of white society legalities, with no real mention of distinctive indigenous cultural, spiritual or physical relationships.
Outcome 16 prescribes that “Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander cultures and languages are strong, supported and flourishing”. But the discussion here is entirely about languages! It is not clear whether the statement of this Outcome is simply an editing oversight or whether a whole chunk of stuff about culture has been omitted for some reason. I note that the Productivity Commission Review also flagged this discrepancy.
… on the Productivity Commission Review
I should preface these comments by reiterating my appreciation for the efforts of the Commission in furnishing the nation with its searching, perspicacious and frank insights into this desperate situation.
Remarkably, however, nowhere do we find the anticipated in-depth analysis of progress towards achieving each of the socio-economic targets — this, despite discussion of them occupying some 40% of the Agreement. (The reason given is that it is too early in the “lifecycle of the Agreement”!) Instead the Commission has elected to examine only three Outcomes in detail (viz, youth justice, child protection and family safety) and then only in relation to bureaucratic issues (ie, the Priority Reforms). They do foreshadow paying more attention to all the targets in future Reviews, but I think it is a pity they did not do so on this occasion. One possible advantage of their current approach, though, is that the reader soon gets the idea that the failures run deep, without being overwhelmed by the scale of the disaster. As the analysis of the three Outcomes discussed is considerably detailed, one readily gets an appreciation of the multiplicity of systemic failures, most of which are common to all three targets examined. The reader is left to infer that things are unlikely to be better with any of the other Outcomes, and this wordlessly prompted mental exercise by itself probably gets the message across better than spelling it out seventeen times would.
Be that as it may, the result is that the Commission devotes most of this Review to examining the implementation of the Priority Reforms (ie, the bureaucratic infrastructure). It is important to bear in mind, though, that these are but suggested means to an end, and as yet unproven in their efficacy; indeed, there may be other ways of achieving the end (which is of course closure of the gap). I think it is a mistake to get so bogged down with the Priority Reforms that we lose focus on the socio-economic parameters which characterize the gap. It’s like saying that one can only get from A to B by using this dodgy vehicle, so let’s devote all our energies to fixing it, when in fact there may be some other perfectly serviceable vehicle hidden behind a bush nearby.
Despite lamenting the absence of consequences for governments when they fail to meet the commitments they made in the Agreement, the document provides no guidance on what these consequences might look like.
… on the Close the Gap Campaign’s 2025 Report
First, let me say that one cannot but be impressed by the enormous dignity embodied in this document.
While the 2023 Voice Referendum was not its main focus, the Close the Gap Campaign’s 2025 Report does make some brief remarks on the reasons for the failure of the Referendum. These remarks are quite valid, but they neglect to mention some fundamental issues which, besides being of greater consequence at the time, continue to operate in our society and threaten to derail efforts to close the gap if they are not acknowledged, understood and addressed. I have highlighted these issues in my essay on the Referendum.
The Report makes a point of stating that it is based on the principles of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP). It is worth recalling that Australia was one of only four countries to vote against the UN Resolution (the others being Canada, the United States and New Zealand). It took a change of government for Australia to ratify the Declaration. (The other three countries have also since reversed their initial position.) The reported reasons for the initial rejection merit revisiting. I suspect these misgivings still hold sway in some quarters, which may go some way towards explaining the current reluctance, if not outright hostility, of successive governments to implement so many of the provisions of the National Agreement on Closing the Gap. (They probably have relevance to the Treaty situation as well.) It raises the question of whether placing too much emphasis on the Declaration or the concepts it espouses is actually counterproductive. It is of course outrageous that one should be driven to consider this possibility, but politics is a brutal business and one needs to be pragmatic in pursuit of one’s goals. I merely raise this matter as something to be considered.
It is striking how the Report claims that Australia’s indigenous people have the solutions, yet the extensive list of recommendations is, with few exceptions, directed at governments and political parties. Unfortunately, a solution is not a solution if it fails to be adopted and the problem persists; some other solution then needs to be found. Cooperation and funding from governments is of course necessary in certain areas, and many things would be easier with government backing, but the sad reality is that such backing is all too often resisted, rejected, withdrawn, laggard or insensitive. I think a more promising path to success lies in focusing more on self-sufficient programs that do not rely on politicians and the bureaucracies at their disposal taking effective action. It is heartening to see the Report go on to exhibit a selection of such activities already in progress.
I am of two minds about the list of recommendations. There is indeed something to be said for repeating the list year after year for as long as necessary, as part of the holding to account and putting on record the length of time indigenous Australians have called for these things to be implemented. But, while there is no doubting the merit of each of the recommendations put forward, such a lengthy list runs the risk of being counterproductive. The eye of even the most ardent supporter glazes over, focus is lost, and the whole thing ends up being put on the back burner. This is especially so in these geopolitically tumultuous times when politicians and public alike are confronted almost daily with one crisis after another, each demanding to be dealt with somehow, if only in an intellectual/emotional way. It is the responsibility of governments to keep in play all the balls they are juggling, but this is an ideal that can ill withstand the onslaught, not only of pandemics, natural disasters and wars, but also of less catastrophic situations. Perceived threats to the prevailing “equilibrium” divert attention from flaws in the status quo. In such circumstances, entreaties to politicians need to be few and as straightforward as possible.
Having said this, we cannot simply dispense with the recommendations and replace them with something else. This is because we are meant to view them as constituting a “roadmap” for implementing the bureaucratic reforms deemed necessary to support the programs aimed at closing the gap. I think the way to resolve the tension between necessity and simplicity is to present the recommendations in the form of a diagram. I envisage this as a sophisticated flowchart incorporating graphic elements designed to entice the viewer into exploring the various components and their interrelationships. It needs to be informative, directive and seductive. We want a visual representation of an unassailable logic. The viewer should not only feel entranced by the scheme depicted but also feel motivated to see it realized. A wonderful opportunity for indigenous artists (graphics artists and others) to make a real contribution to closing the gap. With suitable embellishments, this project could also supply a framework for identifying the connections between the four Priority Reforms, the lack of such a framework being one of the Productivity Commission’s criticisms of the National Agreement. (By the way, the diagram in Figure 1 in Volume 1 of the Commission’s Review lacks the degree of sophistication required for our purpose.) The ideas in this paragraph lend themselves, via an imaginative and ambitious elaboration, to the creation of a whole new paradigm for managing projects such as closing the gap, but perhaps more on this at some other time.
As already noted, the Close the Gap Campaign Report presents welcome and refreshing examples of successful on-the-ground programs that give cause for optimism that ways can be found to close the gap in many areas without relying on the good graces of politicians. This “strengths-based approach” (as the Campaign describes it) is a most commendable feature of the Report, giving it a different character from other such documents. Even so, the discussion relates mostly to the Priority Reforms rather than the Socio-economic Outcomes. I hope that future Reports will give more attention to the latter.
In addition to the list of recommendations to governments, I would like to have seen a separate list of recommendations to non-government agencies to guide them in devising effective programs capable of running (mostly) independently of government involvement. This latter set of recommendations would be based on experience. Notwithstanding the fact that different organizations will have different needs, there are likely to be strategic considerations common to all. Setting these forth in a step-by-step fashion could well encourage more people to get involved and expand the repertoire of operational programs. Then it may even be that an approach along the lines of “You can see what we’re doing already; if now you just do this, we’ll be able to do that” (with the this and the that both clearly specified) might prove attractive enough for politicians to come to the party.
The Close the Gap Campaign could also have reached out to the broader Australian populace, taking advantage of the not inconsiderable support demonstrated in the Referendum vote.
And in conclusion…
Along with Truth-Telling, closing the gap is essential. But here there is a lot of talk and little action. It’s probably better to have talk than not, but, if there is no positive action as a result, one needs to find someone else to talk to or some other path to the desired action.
How do we get the recommendations of the various reports implemented fully and speedily? This is the crucial question. To the extent that one expects governments to fulfill their voluntarily assumed obligations, one needs to engage politicians in ways they respond to in the desired manner. It is part of the folklore that politicians are “thick-skinned”. Shame is like water off a duck’s back. If it doesn’t make them anxious about losing their seat at the next election, negative feedback of any sort is probably futile. In the exhibition of carrot and stick, I would be inclined to explore more ways of presenting the carrot.
Australia’s First Nations people should be applauded for refusing to wait for governments to get behind them and embarking on their own endeavors to close the gap. Independent initiatives offer a good defence against political backtracking. As more and more of these projects start to bear fruit, it is conceivable that this DIY approach will even make significant inroads in closing the gap in some of the more egregious government-mediated practices like incarceration and child removal.
Rather than being primarily a Reconciliation project, closing the gap is first and foremost a human rights issue. The inequities need to be addressed, regardless of history. However, if done conscientiously, effectively and expeditiously, I believe it can represent a huge step on the path to Reconciliation. If nothing else, there is enormous potential for closing the gap projects to foster mutual respect and good will on both sides.
I don’t think complete closing of the gap should be regarded as a prerequisite for meaningful Reconciliation, but I do think two things in particular are important. One is that strenuous, expedited and effective efforts at closing the gap are seen to be in operation. The other is that special emphasis needs to be placed on addressing those Outcomes that bespeak the most appalling government-mediated policies that created and still perpetuate the gap — things like incarceration rates, juvenile detention, child removal, and anything associated with the Stolen Generations. Without closing the gap in these areas in particular, it is hard to envisage justice for Australia’s First Nations people or meaningful Reconciliation.