Policy Implications

  • Wendy Aitken
  • Christopher Wareham


Successive Australian governments have undertaken policy to improve Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander wellbeing, all recognising the importance of early childhood to this aspiration. Understanding how current policy processes actually function to maintain social “problems”, rather than solve them, highlights the need for alternatives. Explaining why focusing on strengths is so important in developing community capacity brings the inherent flaws of policy formation to light. This chapter draws on some of the key findings of the previous chapters to demonstrate the need for a shift away from deficit-based policy. It advocates a move towards evidence-based policy that focuses on what works, removing any incentive to maintain the “problem” in order to sustain funding.


Indigenous Community Torres Strait Islander School Engagement Wicked Problem Indigenous Child 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Aitken, W. 2009. Indigenous Policy Failure and Its Historical Foundations. International Journal of Critical Indigenous Studies 2(1): 915–923.Google Scholar
  2. ———. 2013. Attribution Analysis: A Critique of the Policy Paradigm with a Case Study of the Northern Territory Emergency Response. (PhD). University of Tasmania.Google Scholar
  3. Althaus, C., P. Bridgman, and G. Davis. 2013. The Australian Policy Handbook. 5th ed. Sydney: Allen and Unwin.Google Scholar
  4. Anderson, P., and R. Wild 2007. Ampe Akelyernemane Meke Mekarle “Little Children are Sacred”. Report of the Northern Territory Board of Inquiry into the Protection of Aboriginal Children from Sexual Abuse. Darwin, Northern Territory Government.Google Scholar
  5. Bridgman, P., and G. Davis. 2004. The Australian Policy Handbook. Crows Nest: Allen and Unwin.Google Scholar
  6. Colebatch, H.K. 2006. What Work Makes Policy? Policy Sciences 39(4): 309–321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Everett, S. 2003. The Policy Cycle: Democratic Process or Rational Paradigm Revisited? Australian Journal of Public Administration 62(2): 65–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Howlett, M., and M. Ramesh. 1995. Studying Public Policy: Policy Cycles and Policy Subsystems. Toronto: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Hunter, B. 2007. Conspicuous Compassion and Wicked Problems: The Howard Government’s Indigenous Affairs. Agenda: A Journal of Policy Analysis and Reform 4: 35–51.Google Scholar
  10. Jung, C.G. 1962. Commentary on the Secret of the Golden Flower. Translated by Cary F. Baynes. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 81–137.Google Scholar
  11. Kretzman, J.P., and J.L. McKnight. 1993. Building Communities from the Inside Out: A Path Toward Finding and Mobilizing a Community’s Assets. Chicago: ACTA Publications.Google Scholar
  12. Lasswell, H. 1956. The Decision Process: Seven Categories of Functional Analysis. College Park: University of Maryland Press.Google Scholar
  13. McKnight, J. 1995. The Careless Society: Community and Its Counterfeits. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  14. Munford, R., and W. Walsh-Tapiata. 2006. Community Development: Working in the Bicultural Context of Aotearoa New Zealand. Community Development Journal 41(4): 426–442.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Parsons, W. 1995. Public Policy: An Introduction to the Theory and Practice of Policy Analysis. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  16. Stone, D. 2012. Policy Paradox: The Ate of Political Decision Making. 3rd ed. New York: WW Norton and Company.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Wendy Aitken
    • 1
  • Christopher Wareham
    • 1
  1. 1.University of TasmaniaHobartAustralia

Personalised recommendations