The media has been quick to sensationalise the statistics in the Overcoming Indigenous Disadvantage report released last Thursday, particularly those figures that show that indigenous child abuse has increased.

Child abuse is repugnant and naturally our first reaction on hearing these statistics is to be horrified. But, as with any report of official statistics, these should be interpreted with caution.

An increase in recorded incidents of child abuse is not necessarily a bad thing. An undergraduate criminology student could tell you that measured levels of crime only include reported crime. There is always a ‘dark figure’ of unreported crime. As with icebergs, only a small proportion of crime is visible; the bulk remains hidden.

The fact indigenous children are now six times as likely to be abused as non-indigenous children – compared with four times as likely in 2003 – shows the Northern Territory intervention and the work of the Australian Crime Commission are helping uncover previously hidden levels of child abuse in Aboriginal communities.

But the focus on the high levels of abuse and crime in indigenous communities unfairly demonises all Aborigines. It also provides a convenient excuse for the Rudd government if it fails to close the gap on indigenous disadvantage. This is smoke and mirrors stuff to try to hide the flaws in the Closing the Gap campaign.

While ‘closing the gap’ seems like a well-intentioned and benign political slogan – a way of highlighting levels of indigenous disadvantage to maximum effect – there are insidious ramifications and unintended consequences associated with its use.

For one thing, the gap may appear to be closing when little real progress is being made in improving outcomes for the most disadvantaged indigenous people. For example, Productivity Commission head Gary Banks said last week that the one good thing to come out of the report was that the life expectancy gap between non-indigenous and indigenous Australians had narrowed. The likely explanation for this is that more urbanised indigenous people are identifying as Aboriginal. One would be hard-pressed to find many (if any) people over the age of 60 in many remote and regional indigenous communities.

This is typical of the inaccurate way gaps are calculated by averaging the outcomes of all people who identify as Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders.

This approach ignores those indigenous people who have achieved success in mainstream Australia and downplays the real levels of disadvantage experienced by some other indigenous people.

It attributes poor outcomes on the basis of race rather than recognising that different life experiences are the real cause of disadvantage.

In the late 1990s, the New Zealand government employed a similar political slogan. But its ‘Closing the Gaps’ campaign was quietly put to bed after it was found that while social statistics for Maori and Pacific Islanders had generally improved, the statistics for white New Zealanders showed an even greater improvement, and the gaps had increased.

It was also found that while its intention had been to achieve greater equality in outcomes, the campaign had generated negative public perceptions of Maori. In some cases, these negative perceptions became a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Australia’s goal of closing the life expectancy gap between indigenous and non-indigenous people by 2030 is a vague and most likely an unattainable aspiration. Fudging the statistics will reveal some minor improvements.

A better strategy would be to focus on shorter term and more achievable goals that address the underlying causes of indigenous disadvantage.

This requires real policy changes, not Band-Aid solutions. At present, the government has a complex and incoherent approach to funding indigenous programs. Various activities are held up as proof that the government is doing something to help close the gap. But this heavily programmed response will have little impact unless we know where this funding is going and how it is being spent.

Former Northern Territory indigenous minister Marion Scrymgour is pushing the Territory government to hold an inquiry into indigenous spending. With a national indigenous budget of $4.6 billion, working out what this money is and isn’t achieving should be the primary focus of all governments.

Because reports such as Overcoming Indigenous Disadvantage are based on limited data, they never tell the full story. They measure what they can, not necessarily what they should.

And until Aboriginal service providers are made to be more accountable and transparent with their data collection, they never will.

Sara Hudson is a Policy Analyst with the Indigenous Affairs Research Program at The Centre for Independent Studies.