[3] Although the Commission had higher rates of Indigenous involvement and representation than any other government agency at the time, ATSIC was deemed a failure.
Firstly, ATSIC faced rigid scrutiny in the name of keeping it accountable to central government, the result of which was slowness in administration and progress of the Indigenous programs enacted by the Commission.
[10] The New Arrangements followed ATSIC’s dismantling and were enacted to address the socioeconomic disparity of Indigenous peoples, as compared to other Australians.
[10][17] The Indigenous community in Australia faces challenges along socio-economic lines, including lower health and living standards, not enough government support, as well as passivity in political processes.
[4] ICCs are funded to tackle these challenges; their core aims are to restructure “policy development implementation and monitoring,”[18] and to support “coordination of activities across Commonwealth, state and non-governmental sectorial boundaries”.
[19] The government has dedicated funds for programs supporting victims of domestic violence and improving infrastructure for Indigenous communities under the authority of ICCs.
[19] The successful coordination of Indigenous programs and funding across departments is contingent on the skills of ICC officers and managers.
[20] These skills include the ability to advocate for policy change and negotiate with different levels of government as well as being able to cooperate with the Indigenous community.
[10] They rely mostly on senior officials to mitigate the need for advocacy skills, who, in turn, tend to be in short supply.
[23] Accountability is also difficult to track, due to the vague outlines of large-scale coordination between government agencies and ICCs.