Although small steps are being made to close the gap, more needs to be done, particularly when it comes to Aboriginal incarceration rates. Too many government programs continue to focus on applying "culturally appropriate" responses to indigenous disadvantage rather than on basics such as education and employment.
Following the 1991 Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody, crime prevention policies have applied culturally appropriate or "culturally secure" approaches to reduce indigenous incarceration. For example, initiatives such as Circle Sentencing and the Koori and Murri courts, where Aboriginal offenders are brought before their community elders for sanctioning, were established. Yet such initiatives have merely tinkered with aspects of the criminal justice system and not addressed the underlying reasons why people are offending.
Despite countless reports and a multitude of government-funded programs indigenous incarceration rates have continued to rise. In the past 20 years, the percentage of Aboriginal people in jail has nearly doubled from 14 per cent of the total prison population in 1991 to 27 per cent in 2012. Confronted by such shocking statistics it is easy to latch on to the latest panacea being promoted as the solution to this national disgrace.
The current buzzword in criminal justice circles is justice reinvestment. The Senate is conducting an inquiry into the value of a justice reinvestment approach to criminal justice in Australia, with a particular focus on Aboriginal people in prison.
Justice reinvestment is a concept imported from the US, that proposes redirecting money spent on prisons into programs that address the underlying causes of offending in communities with high levels of incarceration.
Supporters claim justice reinvestment will save money by helping to build communities rather than prisons and reduce offending in indigenous communities.
But this ignores the fact that for more than 30 years, governments have been running community based programs. Apart from a few exceptions, such initiatives have not led to real social change.
Before the evangelists get their way and Australia throws money at this new fad we should pause to consider whether justice reinvestment is really the solution to indigenous over-incarceration as its advocates claim.
A number of important differences exist between the criminal justice systems in the US, Britain and Australia, which appear to have been ignored by those promoting justice reinvestment.
A key feature of American justice reinvestment is the devolution of power from state to local authorities. But Australia does not have the capacity to devolve responsibility and provide incentives to state or local governments as the US and Britain do.
The US locks up more of its offenders than Australia. Three-quarters of American offenders are given custodial sentences, whereas only one-fifth of the sentences imposed in Australia are custodial.
Not only is there less room for more diversion programs in Australia, as the NSW Attorney-General and Minister for Justice, the Hon. Greg Smith has pointed out, the justice systems in Australia are smaller with fewer prisoners and less funds to reinvest than those in the United States.
The only area where more diversion programs are needed is in some rural towns and remote communities. However, practical difficulties make diversion programs hard to implement in such locations.
Juvenile offenders from Brewarrina and Wilcannia inevitably end up in juvenile detention in Dubbo because there is no suitable place to return them to in their home towns. Sending them back to their families is not an option as their home environment is often the cause of their offending.
In the fight against indigenous disadvantage and incarceration, justice reinvestment threatens to become yet another distraction from focusing on the fundamentals that will lead to change. We need to focus on education and employment and not be sidetracked into thinking the answer lies with more culturally appropriate or indigenous distinct programs.
Unemployed Aborigines are 20 times more likely to be imprisoned than employed Aborigines. In fact, unemployment has been found to be a greater risk factor for offending than indigenous status.
Education and employment may not sound as novel or exciting as justice reinvestment, but evidence shows they play a critical role in the high indigenous incarceration rate.
In her fight to close the gap on indigenous disadvantage, the Prime Minister should ensure educational outcomes are not reliant on the diversion of funds from prison services but a basic right that states and territories cover in their education budgets.
Sara Hudson is a research fellow at The Centre for Independent Studies. Her report Panacea to Prison? Justice Reinvestment in Indigenous Communities was released by the CIS last week.