Government Favourites in Aboriginal Affairs: The Politics Holding Back Progress

The Australian government’s handling (from Labor & Liberals) of Aboriginal affairs has long been a battleground of political maneuvering with appointments and funding decisions often appearing to serve political interests rather than the needs of Indigenous communities.

And the latest controversy surrounding the federal government’s exemption of YouTube from a proposed under-16s social media ban has reignited concerns about favoritism in policy-making—something all too familiar in the realm of Indigenous affairs.

Because the government’s decision to single out YouTube for exemption has drawn widespread criticism from social media companies and digital rights groups, who argue that the move lacks a rational basis reflecting not only regulatory inconsistencies but also favoritism toward powerful corporations.

And this type of selective policymaking is not new—it mirrors the way Indigenous affairs are often handled where government preferences dictate outcomes rather than evidence-based policy decisions.

Playing Favourites: A Barrier to Real Indigenous Progress

For years Indigenous communities have struggled to gain access to fair and effective government support.

And funding programs land rights decisions and leadership appointments within Indigenous agencies often favor individuals and organisations with political connections rather than those with the most expertise or community support.

This favoritism perpetuates systemic failures, prevents innovative solutions from taking hold and ultimately slows progress towards closing the disparity gaps in health education and economic opportunities.

One glaring example of this is the National Indigenous Australians Agency (NIAA) which plays a central role in shaping Indigenous policies and funding allocations.

But the agency has been criticised for appointing individuals who lack grassroots experience and have limited engagement with Indigenous communities.

Thus, this top-down approach has led to ineffective programs wasted resources and disillusionment among First Nations people who feel excluded from decision-making processes that directly affect their lives.

Similarly the Indigenous Advancement Strategy (IAS) introduced in 2014 was supposed to streamline Indigenous funding but instead, it led to a redistribution of funds that disproportionately benefited organisations with little to no Indigenous representation leaving genuine community-led initiatives struggling to stay afloat.

Thus, the impact of these decisions has been devastating with many Indigenous-run organisations sidelined in favor of non-Indigenous groups that have closer ties to political power.

The Consequences of Political Favoritism in Indigenous Affairs

The political favoritism embedded in Indigenous affairs has real-world consequences because it results in:

• Misdirected funding Resources go to organisations that lack cultural competency or grassroots experience leading to ineffective or even harmful programs
• Lack of accountability Government-appointed leaders often prioritise political loyalty over genuine outcomes avoiding transparency and accountability
• Loss of trust in government institutions Many Indigenous people no longer see government-led initiatives as legitimate or beneficial reducing engagement and participation in these programs
• Stagnation in closing the gap Despite decades of policies aimed at reducing disparities Indigenous Australians continue to face worse health education and economic outcomes compared to non-Indigenous Australians

This favoritism mirrors the government’s approach to social media regulation…

Because instead of developing comprehensive evidence-based policies that ensure the safety and rights of all Australians the government appears to be prioritising corporate interests.

Just as Indigenous organisations are sidelined in favor of well-connected entities YouTube’s exemption raises questions about who is truly influencing policy decisions in Australia.

We Need the Best People for the Job—Not Political Appointees

If Australia is serious about addressing Indigenous disadvantage it must move away from appointing government loyalists to key Indigenous policy roles and instead prioritise those with real experience, credibility and a proven track record of working with communities.

And the best person for the job should not be determined by political affiliation but by their ability to deliver tangible improvements for Indigenous people.

Because a genuine commitment to Indigenous self-determination means letting Indigenous communities lead the way…. and Governments must listen to and invest in Indigenous-led solutions rather than favoring bureaucratic institutions or external organisations with little real connection to First Nations people.

The current system of government control and selective favoritism is an outdated model that has repeatedly failed. It is time to recognise that Indigenous leadership not political convenience is the key to closing the gap.

And the Labor government’s handling of YouTube’s exemption is a reminder of how power structures operate in Australia and Indigenous Australians know all too well what happens when political interests override fairness and justice.

But it is time for change—not just in social media policy but in Indigenous affairs where the stakes are much higher and the consequences of favoritism are felt every day in our communities.