Purpose
The purpose of this evidence brief is to provide a description and narrative summary of literature into decentralisation approaches overseas, specifically in relation to Indigenous peoples and child welfare. The evidence brief focuses particularly on examples from Australia, Canada, and the United States (US), given their somewhat comparable circumstances. Innovative examples are highlighted where there are applicable insights.
One opportunity to achieve greater realisation of Māori self-determination and the exercising of tino rangatiratanga is through Crown delegation and/or devolution (what is generally described in this evidence brief as decentralisation). Decentralisation and the pathways towards its achievement merit attention as they pose considerable opportunities and challenges. Arguably, unless the appropriate balance and partnerships are found it would undermine the aspirations of the Crown and Māori and continue to diminish Māori self-determination and exercising of tino rangatiratanga. Costs would continue to be imposed on tamariki Māori and whānau into the future.
Oranga Tamariki can currently delegate statutory powers to organisations outside of government with the agreement of the Minister for Children (under section 7AA(2)(c)(iv)). This could support Māori taking a greater role in the provision of services for tamariki Māori and whānau. Oranga Tamariki has taken some early steps to delegate services and is actively pursuing further opportunities. For delegated statutory powers, overall accountability remains with the Oranga Tamariki Chief Executive. The more significant devolution of statutory powers would require substantial legislative change (Oranga Tamariki, 2020).
Methodology
A narrative review of the literature was carried out to identify key decentralisation concepts, developments, and practices. The narrative review approach gathers information about a subject from many sources. It is considered appropriate for summarising and synthesising literature to draw conclusions on ‘what is known’ about a subject. The narrative review helps collate diverse and plural understandings.
This evidence brief largely draws on overseas literature, supplemented with insights from Aotearoa New Zealand. The reporting seeks to provide a clear understanding of decentralisation. It discusses the international ‘historical’ transformation as well as going into specifics of decentralisation approaches. The international literature on decentralisation is sizable and points to numerous hopeful developments over the past several decades.
The evidence brief design followed from the commissioning of the evidence brief by Policy and was informed by subsequent discussions. A draft structure was developed and within that scope a set of search terms (strings) was utilised in select databases, repositories, and search engines. This includes search terms such as ‘Indigenous’, ‘autonomy’, ‘devolution’, ‘delegation’, ‘decentralisation’, and ‘self-government. Other search terms were used when specific insights were sought, or themes developed. The literature was reviewed and analysed in Nvivo before being structured into this document.
The evidence brief is comprehensive. However, it is not an exhaustive search of the literature, nor can it be given the limitations, do justice to all the relevant considerations. The evidence brief sought out a wide range of literature from a variety of sources. This includes materials from researchers, Indigenous organisations, NGOs, and government sources. The materials have not been rated for quality in the sense that the underlying methodologies assessed for
rigour and findings for validity. It is acknowledged that much Indigenous knowledge sits outside the body of materials that are accessible – such as with mātauranga Māori – and is therefore unable to be included.
Key Results
Overseas examples show self-determination through mechanisms and structures of decentralisation are necessary, but not sufficient conditions for improving Indigenous child welfare:
- In the U.S. with the passing of the ICWA in 1978, most American Indian and Alaskan Natives tribes now operate some form of child welfare services. Despite this support more broadly has been lacking.
- In Australia, the child welfare legislative context has changed considerably over the past two decades. All Australian states have been through one or more child welfare reviews in this time. Progress towards greater Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander self-determination has arguably fallen short. There has generally been less acceptance of the idea of self-determination and self-government in Australia.
- In Canada, Aboriginal rights and treaty rights are recognised by the Constitution Act, 1982. Canadian provinces largely look after child welfare. Indigenous child welfare remains somewhat patchwork given different provincial legislative environments and histories. Some of the more progressive approaches to child welfare by Indigenous people have nonetheless occurred in Canada.
Successful decentralisation involves a “whole-of-community” approach and empowers Indigenous communities. Fundamentally decentralisation must support readiness and development.
Participation and self-determination in designing the most appropriate government structures and governance mechanisms are critical. Evidence demonstrates policies that support the development of these mechanisms and structures, such that they are capable and effective institutions, and articulate indigenous people’s values and aspirations, are more likely to succeed.