Rate of Indigenous people in jail has risen by 20% since 2019, Closing the Gap data shows
Indigenous organisations have urged greater action from all governments to improve the lives of Indigenous people after new Closing the Gap data revealed child protection, Indigenous incarceration and suicide rates were getting worse.
Overall, the data showed four targets were on track to be met. Six targets showed improvement but were not on track to be met. Four targets were worsening while a further four targets were not able to be assessed.
The rate of Indigenous incarceration in 2024 was 2,304 per 100,000, compared with 1,906 per 100,000 in 2019 and 2,042 in 2023.
Sign up for Guardian Australia's breaking news email
First Nation children in out-of-home care increased from 47.3 per 1,000 in 2019 to 50.3 per 1,000 in 2024. The rate of suicide among Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people reached 30.8 per 100,000 in 2023, the highest recorded since 2018, though researchers said there were caveats due to changes in population data.
The most recent population data from the Australian Bureau of Statistics recorded a 25% increase in the Indigenous population between 2017 and 2021, while the Northern Territory recorded a decline in population.
Productivity commissioner Selwyn Button said the Closing the Gap data showed 'the importance of governments taking their commitments to the national agreement seriously, and taking meaningful actions to fully implement the priority reforms'.
'Governments need to get better at sharing power and decision-making with community control organisations – being able to sit at the table to plan, design and implement strategies, sitting alongside community and community controlled organisations,' Button said.
The commissioner said some caution of the data is needed, such as with suicide rates and the NT which showed many targets are going backwards such as worsening female life expectancy, birth weight, Indigenous early childhood education and child development, youth engagement, employment, and child and adult imprisonment rates.
The latest update pointed to an increase in Aboriginal people's access to internet, with nine in 10 or just over 88% of Indigenous people aged 15 and over using the web daily.
It also showed gains in native title and land rights, with just under 4.5m sq km of Australia's land mass and more than 110,000 sq km of Australia's sea country being under Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people's rights or interests.
'Native title determinations are happening more frequently, and land hand backs to traditional owner groups from state governments are happening more as well which is contributing to that data.'
Justice advocacy group Change the Record's national director, Blake Cansdale, said he was concerned some jurisdictions' 'tough on crime' approach was contributing to more interactions between law enforcement and First Nations people.
Sign up to Breaking News Australia
Get the most important news as it breaks
after newsletter promotion
'The gross overrepresentation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in custody is unequivocal evidence of successive governments failing our people across the nation,' Candsale said.
'This serves the interests of nobody other than politicians that espouse such positions; we need to focus on primary health-based and social supports that address the underlying sociocultural, emotional and economic causes of offending behaviour,' the Anaiwan man said.
Lead convenor of the Coalition of Peaks, Pat Turner, who negotiated the national agreement on Closing the Gap with the Morrison government and states and territories, welcomed progress in key reforms but said there was still a long way to go.
'The growing recognition of our land and sea rights and increased digital access show what is possible when the right policies and investments are made,' Turner said.
But in critical areas such as incarceration, child protection and suicide prevention Turner said there were clear 'setbacks' and urged a 'deeper understanding' between Australian governments and Aboriginal-controlled organisations working with community.
'Governments must step up and fully implement the priority reforms of the Closing the Gap agreement.
'If we are to achieve lasting change, the solutions must be led by us, not imposed upon us.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Guardian
3 days ago
- The Guardian
Countries urged to ‘hold the line' in Geneva plastics treaty negotiations
Talks between nations to hammer out a plastics treaty to end plastic pollution continued behind closed doors in Geneva on Thursday, the final day of negotiations, as civil society groups urged countries to 'hold the line' to secure a strong agreement. With time running out to seal a deal between 184 countries, environmental groups expressed concern that frontline communities, Indigenous people and others suffering the worst impacts of the world's growing plastic crisis were being 'sold out' in an effort to secure a treaty, without meaningful or legally binding measures that would address the scale of the problem, 'at any cost'. This week's negotiations towards a legally binding agreement to tackle plastic pollution are the latest in five rounds of talks over the past two and a half years, which have so far failed to seal a deal. Talks at the UN offices stalled on Wednesday after a consensus draft treaty, presented by the chair of the event, Luis Vayas Valdivieso, was rejected by 80 countries. The ambitious countries – who want curbs on production – described it as 'unacceptable', a 'lowest common denominator' and a toothless waste management instrument, because it did not include production caps nor address the chemicals used in plastic products. Countries from the 'like minded' group, chiefly oil-producing countries and including Saudi Arabia, who want the treaty to focus on recycling and voluntary measures, said it crossed too many of their red lines and did not do enough to pare down the scope of the treaty. Graham Forbes, Greenpeace's head of delegation, said: 'The entire day has been behind closed doors. All of civil society is on edge, waiting to see what the next move is going to be from the chair and from the secretariat. We are nervous, we are anticipating, and we're concerned that we're going to be sold out in an effort to get a treaty at any cost. 'Civil society, frontline communities, Indigenous peoples, everyone is united in wanting to see something meaningful here. And we're praying that these governments are going to do the right thing and put our collective health before short term profits for the petrochemical sector.' A rush for a weak treaty in Geneva, Forbes said, 'would be a disaster'. Some NGOs said they had 'lost faith' in a process with the need for consensus between a majority of countries who want production caps versus a small but powerful minority of oil- and plastic-producing nations who continue to reject production limits. Christina Dixon, a campaign lead at the Environmental Investigation Agency, said the need for consensus was being 'weaponised'. 'A lot of civil society have lost faith in the process, because we've consistently seen a majority of countries aligning around a vision for the type of treaty that we'd be happy with. Yet, because of the way that this is being weaponised, we're constantly bowing to a small but vocal minority who are holding it hostage,' she said. This system was allowing a majority of countries to be 'drowned out', Dixon said. She urged: 'What we need to see tonight is that the views of that majority reflected fairly.' Sign up to Down to Earth The planet's most important stories. Get all the week's environment news - the good, the bad and the essential after newsletter promotion Earlier on Thursday, Camila Zepeda, the director general for global affairs at Mexico's ministry of foreign affairs and a negotiator at the talks, said: 'If [the next treaty draft] is exactly the status quo, then we'll need to assess if it's better to then keep working and trying to find a better environment for this topic, but it's too early to tell … 'We understand it will be a very simple treaty at this stage. But if the key components are there and we can build it in time, then we will be signing. By now, we've given up bans, we've given up production limits. We've given up so much, so much. 'As ambitious countries, we want an outcome, and we see that if we don't get an outcome, we're risking a lot. But at the same time, we won't take just anything.' Ahead of this week's talks, an expert review published in the Lancet described plastics as 'a grave, growing and under-recognised danger to human and planetary health'. It estimated health-related damages globally added up to £1.1tn annually, with infants and children particularly vulnerable. However, some delegates were still hopeful. Sivendra Michael, the Fiji government's permanent secretary for the ministry of environment and climate change, said: 'There is still time. There are still processes that the chair can explore. There are many other innovative processes that have worked in other multilateral settings that can be explored. 'It's important for us to take a step back and reflect that we are negotiating at the edge of a planetary emergency.' The talks continue.
The Independent
4 days ago
- The Independent
Plastic treaty talks hang in the balance as warnings mount over stalling progress
Talks on the world's first legally binding treaty to end plastic pollution are hanging in the balance with just two days left before the deadline and negotiators deadlocked over the most contentious issues, including limits on production. Environmentalists and Indigenous leaders held signs on Tuesday asking nations to show courage and agree to a strong treaty. "We've invested a lot into coming all the way to Geneva, away from our communities, away from our families, because we understand how important an issue this is and how crucial a moment this is," said Juressa Lee, who is from New Zealand and was representing the Aotearoa Plastic Pollution Alliance. 'It's a once-in-a-lifetime plastics treaty." A coalition of environmental and health organisations have said countries were 'moving far too slowly' after the first week, and that 'blocking countries' risked pushing the talks towards a 'lowest common denominator' outcome. They warned that without urgent compromises, the session could fail to produce a treaty capable of tackling the scale of the crisis. 'We're talking about negotiations that could fundamentally change our plastic future and yet the attention, the focus, is nowhere near what you would expect given the health and environmental stakes,' said Graham Forbes, global plastics campaign lead at Greenpeace. The final round of talks started in Geneva last Tuesday, after a collapse at the previous session in Busan last year when countries failed to bridge deep divisions. The process, launched in 2022, aims to create a treaty covering the full life cycle of plastics, from production to disposal. "To date the process has been broken," said Brett Nadrich, spokesperson from Break Free From Plastic. "Civil society leaders from around the world, together with those most impacted, are speaking with a unified voice that we need to show courage, not compromise, and fix the process." At the heart of the disagreement is Article 6, which addresses the supply of primary plastic polymers and whether the treaty should impose mandatory production cuts. High Ambition Countries, or nations pushing for the plastics treaty to include strong, legally binding measures, and health advocates say it's essential to put a production cap on plastics to address pollution at its source, while petrochemical producers and their allies argue the focus should remain on waste management and recycling. 'The elephant in the room is production,' Mr Forbes told The Independent. 'If you want to end plastic pollution, you have to stop making so much plastic. It's simple.' However, he added: 'The fossil fuel industry is one of the most powerful corporate interests in the world. As they see a decline in demand for transportation and energy, they are doubling down on producing more plastic to extract short-term profits at the expense of all of us.' Some countries have openly said in the last talks in Busan that if a strong treaty isn't agreed upon under the UN, they will come together as a group to create a deal of their own. However, experts say such an arrangement has its own limitations. 'Proponents of this approach usually say that this could still be useful. They usually don't admit that what they mean is that it would be 'better than nothing' but actually not very efficient,' Aleksandar Rankovic, cofounder and director at think tank The Common Initiative, said. 'Signing countries could do something at home indeed – which they can do now, even without the treaty — and better cooperate on different points. But such a treaty could not, by design since it wouldn't include the main plastic producers, aim at curbing plastic production and pollution globally.' Meanwhile, plastic production is set to continue rising and more and more evidence shows there are health risks associated with microplastics and related chemicals. A study by Greenpeace analysing the air negotiators are breathing in Geneva, one of the cleanest cities in the world, detected plastic fibres and fragments in both indoor and outdoor locations, including cafés, public transport and shops. Bjorn Beeler, international coordinator of the International Pollutants Elimination Network (IPEN), said producing more plastics is becoming a 'planetary crisis'. 'By the year 2060, you're looking at four times more plastic on the planet than you have today,' he told The Independent. 'That's enormous if you think about just the volume of that material – and it's not only the plastics, it's the number of chemicals used to produce that.' 'The third planetary crisis is chemical pollution, harming human health and even the ability of the next generation to reproduce.' 'Who's responsible? Who should pay for this mess? If it's circularity and recycling, it's you and me, taxpayers. If you export primary plastic polymers, you should pay. You're exporting pollution and telling everybody else to recycle,' he said. As the talks entered the second week, the presence of industry lobbyists remained a flashpoint. The International Council of Chemical Associations (ICCA) said at least 234 fossil fuel and petrochemical industry lobbyists have registered to attend the conference and they were part of some country delegations as well. In a statement at the beginning of talks, ICCA spokesman Matthew Kastner said: 'Our delegates are here to listen to governments so we can understand the unique challenges they face and bring solutions that leverage innovations and the deep technical expertise our industries have that can help end plastic pollution.' Civil society groups have accused the industry of trying to weaken the treaty by promoting 'circularity' as a substitute for production cuts, and pushing controversial 'chemical recycling' technologies that environmentalists describe as polluting. Circularity is the idea that plastics should be kept in use for as long as possible through reuse and recycling, but critics say it is being misused to justify continued high levels of plastic production without tackling the root cause. Campaigners have also sought to draw attention to the health impacts of plastics. Outside the Palais des Nations, Canadian artist Benjamin Von Wong's six-metre-high sculpture The Thinker's Burden has been gradually engulfed in plastic waste each day of the talks. 'From the air we breathe to the food we eat, microplastics and toxic chemicals are entering our bodies, and future generations will inherit the consequences if we fail to act now,' Mr Von Wong said. Medical researchers have found that microplastics less than 10 micrometres in size, small enough to be inhaled deep into the lungs, make up the vast majority of airborne plastic particles. A recent French study estimated adults inhale around 68,000 of these ultra-fine particles every day. The treaty's outcome, as the negotiations conclude on Thursday, will determine whether the final text addresses such upstream drivers of pollution or concentrates on downstream waste management.
The Guardian
5 days ago
- The Guardian
Aukus laws will mean anywhere in Australia could be potential nuclear waste dump, critics say
Critics of Australia's Aukus submarine deal say the government has given itself the power to nominate any place in Australia as a potential nuclear waste dump, without proper consultation with communities and indigenous landowners. Australia has agreed to take sole responsibility for the management, security and storage of all nuclear waste from its fleet of proposed nuclear-powered submarines, including the spent fuel from the submarines' reactors – high-level nuclear waste that will be radioactive for millennia once the submarines are decommissioned from the early 2050s. The spent fuel is also a non-proliferation risk: Australia's nuclear submarines will run on highly enriched uranium which can be reprocessed to make nuclear weapons. The spent fuel will require military-grade security to safeguard it. Other navies use low enriched uranium, which cannot be used in a warhead, to power their submarines, but requires refuelling every few years. A spokesperson for the Australian Submarine Agency said the government was 'committed to the highest levels of nuclear stewardship, including the safe and secure disposal of waste', and that the 'selection of any designated zone for high-level waste will be informed by extensive consultation with the community and key stakeholders'. Sign up: AU Breaking News email But critics argue the Australian Naval Nuclear Power Safety Bill 2024, passed in October last year, is far more broadly drawn, allowing the government to 'pick any place on a map, then the next day make a nuclear waste dump there'. The Greens defence spokesperson, senator David Shoebridge, said Aukus was a 'slow-motion disaster' that would leave Australia with a toxic legacy for millennia. He said the legislation, as passed, failed to protect the rights of communities. 'This law allows the minister to pick any place on a map, then the next day make a nuclear waste dump there. It sounds impossible, but the way the law is written could make your neighbourhood, or the defence facility next door, a nuclear waste dump almost overnight. 'The second this law passed, Perth and Adelaide became home to two nuclear waste dumps. The local community was not informed, they were not consulted, and they are not being told what is happening now.' Shoebridge said the government, instead of learning the lessons of previous failed attempts to build a national nuclear waste facility, had 'decided the best course of action was to make sure the public, First Nations people, and environmental groups had no way to protect the land'. The legislation, as passed, designates HMAS Stirling off Perth and the Osborne naval shipyard in Adelaide as 'designated zones' for nuclear activities, including storage of radioactive waste: low- and intermediate-level nuclear waste from Australia, UK, and US submarines will be stored there. But the legislation also grants the government the power to establish: 'any other area in Australia that is prescribed by the regulations to be a designated zone'. Draft regulations, circulated by the government, state the government regulator must be satisfied 'that meaningful consultation has been undertaken' with communities, indigenous landowners and the wider public, over a proposed nuclear waste facility. But the legislated new Australian Naval Nuclear Power Safety Regulator will sit within defence, answerable to the defence minister, raising concerns over the independence of the proposed new body. The law was amended last year to prohibit the US and UK dumping high-level radioactive material – such as spent fuel or irradiated nuclear reactors – in Australia. But both countries will dispose of low- and intermediate-level nuclear waste from their nuclear submarines in Australia. Former South Australian senator Rex Patrick, an ex-submariner and Aukus critic, is currently waging a freedom of information battle in the federal court to get access to a November 2023 defence department report – examining potential sites for a nuclear waste site – but to which he has been refused access. Patrick said his opposition to Aukus was related to the project's cost – at last estimate $368bn – and the increasing risk it would fail, and leave without the Australia the naval defences it required. 'But I also am frustrated by the fact that they haven't costed this thing out from cradle-to-grave. The $368bn that has been allocated to this project does not include the nuclear waste storage and disposal, and there has been no attempt to explain to the Australian people how this is going to work.' Patrick said the secrecy surrounding the Aukus details, and the lack of parliamentary and public discussion around the agreement, meant that critical details were being kept from the Australian people, undermining public confidence and the project's social licence. Sign up to Breaking News Australia Get the most important news as it breaks after newsletter promotion 'The government has had a road map for Aukus for a long time … they are just not telling the Australian public. I'm not asking for the secret makeup of the fuel inside a nuclear-powered submarine … I'm simply saying 'how are they going to dispose of this radioactive nuclear material?' But all of this has been wrapped in secrecy.' Australia currently stores low- and intermediate-level waste from medical, laboratory and research use: but there is no permanent storage facility. Successive Australian governments have wrestled with how and where to dispose of nuclear waste for nearly three decades without finding a permanent solution. Since 1998, governments have proposed three separate sites – Woomera and Kimba in South Australia, and Muckaty Station in the Northern Territory: in each case, fierce opposition from local communities and indigenous landowners have seen the proposal rejected and abandoned. Defence officials told parliament in 2020 that an evaluation of four possible sites on defence land found none were suitable. 'The defence assessment determined that the siting of the National Radioactive Waste Management Facility at any of the four sites identified in the request could not be achieved,' officials said in evidence to the Senate. As far back as 2004, released cabinet documents show, the Howard government noted 'there is a pressing need to make progress on establishing a radioactive waste management facility'. Cabinet agreed to make 'field assessments [of] Christmas Island, as the preferred location, and two onshore locations (Pine Gap and Tindal Royal Australian air force base and related locations in the Northern Territory, with a preference for the related locations). The 'related locations' were not specified. In March 2023, the defence minister, Richard Marles, said the nuclear reactors from decommissioned nuclear submarines would be stored on 'defence land, current or future', raising the prospect that a site could be identified and then declared 'defence land'. Marles said 'we will, within the next 12 months, establish a process' for identifying a nuclear waste storage site that would be 'remote from populations'. That process has not yet been established. A spokesperson for the Australian Submarine Agency said the disposal of high-level radioactive waste would not be required until the 2050s, when Australia's first nuclear-powered submarine is expected to be decommissioned. 'Selection of any designated zone for high-level waste will be informed by extensive consultation with the community and key stakeholders. 'Intermediate and high-level waste, including spent nuclear fuel, will be stored and disposed on the current or future defence estate.' There is currently no permanent storage facility anywhere in the world for permanent high-level nuclear waste storage. The US and UK, which have run nuclear submarines for decades, have still not built permanent storage facilities. Finland has spent more than 40 years and more than €1bn building a 100,000-year underground storage facility which is currently undergoing trials.
