Aboriginal Businesses for Aboriginal Communities - PROCUREMENT | BLACK CLADDING | ACCOUNTABILITY

I should preface this piece by saying that I’ve had so many positive experiences as both a consultant and public servant in procurement. However, I've had some recent experiences and reflections on my time as a public servant.

Given I have experience on both sides of the fence, I feel I have a pretty comprehensive understanding of the process and policies surrounding Aboriginal procurement.

Based on this experience, I’ve identified some gaps areas and practices that need to be improved to properly progress Aboriginal procurement and realise the purpose and aspirations of Aboriginal procurement policies.

A Lack of Understanding

I’ve found in my time as a public servant and as a consultant there has been a distinct lack of understanding of the Aboriginal Procurement Policy and how to go about engaging an Aboriginal business.

Whether this lack of knowledge and understanding is real or feigned is besides the point; it still results in a lack of opportunities for Aboriginal businesses.

A recent example happened at a cultural event I attended. A non-Aboriginal business was engaged for media and photography. The appropriateness of any media at this event was, at best, questionable. Regardless, the company acted in a manner that could appear to be perceived as culturally unsafe and inappropriate.

Unbeknownst to me, the government communications team were questioned about why they decided to engage a non-Aboriginal business for an important cultural event. In response they decided to send me an email seeking a list of Aboriginal media providers, photographers and videographers, despite our organisation delivering exactly those services.

A quick search would give you a list of at least 6 providers in the local area, but it is besides the point. As an Aboriginal person who is not employed by government, it is not my responsibility to ensure that government employees are aware of whole of government policies that have been in place for years. These policies exist to support and encourage the sector to engage Aboriginal expertise wherever possible.

During my time in government, I would provide copies of the Aboriginal Procurement Policy to colleagues, talk them through how to use, understand and apply it, and take them through how to engage an Aboriginal business. I would go as far as giving lists of certified Aboriginal businesses.

It often felt as though I had to spoon-feed information, and it distinctly shows a lack of understanding of the Aboriginal Procurement Policy.

Black Cladding

Put simply, not enough is being done to combat Black Cladding. In NSW, "black cladding" refers to a practice where non-Indigenous businesses falsely claim Indigenous ownership or engagement to gain access to Indigenous procurement policies or contracts.

I feel the certified vs registered Aboriginal business terminology is slightly misleading and the standards applied are too soft. Registered businesses are at least 50% or more Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander owned. This caters for equal partnerships with non-Indigenous owners. Certified businesses are 51% or more Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander owned, managed and controlled.

Better language and grading could be used to distinguish what businesses are really owned, managed and controlled by Aboriginal people.

At a minimum, we should be looking at the ownership percentage of Aboriginal businesses, aiming for at least 75% ownership; assessing board structures, including whether the majority of board members are Aboriginal; and looking at staffing structures to assess whether organisations promote Aboriginal employment and are staffed by Aboriginal people in leadership positions.

Aboriginal community endorsement and approval are integral to combating Black Cladding. Aboriginal businesses should be able to show or explain how they’ve effectively worked with community and have Aboriginal community references that support or endorse the work they’ve done.

I’d recommend a three-tiered approach with Tier 1 including Aboriginal businesses that are 100% owned or have a board made up entirely of Aboriginal people, with strong and positive references and endorsement from Aboriginal communities or community organisations.

Tiers 2 and 3 could have an ownership model of 85% and 75%, respectively, with board membership reflecting those figures as well.

I would personally remove the term 'registered Aboriginal business'. I feel that it cheapens the criteria for what an Aboriginal business really is and is too nebulous. I’ve seen so many people not care about or understand the nuances between a certified Aboriginal business and a registered one. In my view, if you don’t have majority Aboriginal ownership, you aren’t an Aboriginal business. Plain and simple.

Transparency

I think back to a recent meeting where a government employee reached out to seek a meeting with us about a scope of work. During the meeting he was talking about a potential piece of work that was significant but insinuated the budget was minimal.

It phrased the work as an opportunity for us to gain further work down the track and hinted at us doing work for a reduced cost. When I enquired what the budget was, he cited value for money and said he couldn’t give any indication of budget which is fair and not an unusual response. He advised he would potentially send an RFQ but needed to seek approval from his director before doing so.

I completely understand the value for money aspect from a government perspective, having procured services for government. However, being coy about budget scope and budget restraints doesn’t ensure value for money. Before approaching an Aboriginal business, approvals would have been in place and a budget would have been set.

At the end of the day, it’s about respectful negotiations. I’d be curious to know if this is the approach taken when engaging non-Aboriginal businesses, and it may well be.

It’s also too common of an experience to hear nothing back or hear no feedback on what could be improved upon when tendering for contracts. This is something that was identified in the Aboriginal Procurement Policy Review 2023 done by NSW Treasury.

Aboriginal Businesses Doing Work with and For Aboriginal Communities

It’s too common to see tender processes open to non-Aboriginal businesses for direct work with Aboriginal communities. On one occasion we came in second in a tender process, losing out to a non-Aboriginal business on a community research project. We were then asked to consider by the procurer doing the engagement work for the non-Aboriginal company as a subcontractor with an Aboriginal community at a reduced cost. Could you imagine as a team how that felt? That we were competent enough to do the heavy lifting but not enough to manage the project.

When questioning why they wouldn’t select an Aboriginal business to undertake work with an Aboriginal community, we were advised the criteria just noted that businesses had to have experience working with Aboriginal people and not actually be an Aboriginal business.

I’ve seen this criterion used in so many projects that involve working directly with Aboriginal people and communities, and to be frank, it’s a cop-out. I’ve seen it used for procurements involving CtG completely undermining the core principles that underpin the agreement.

Aboriginal businesses, organisations and people are best placed to do work with Aboriginal communities. We have subject matter expertise that can’t be replicated or learned by non-Aboriginal people. Unfortunately, this value is not always recognised in procurement processes, and it frustrates me, not only as a consultant but also as a Blackfulla to see contracts awarded to non-Aboriginal companies to work with our communities.

At the end of the day, I’ve had so many positive experiences being engaged as a consultant by government but there’s so much inconsistency when looking at Aboriginal procurement processes, and there’s definite room for improvement.

One of the core pieces of feedback we had in this scenario is that the selection panel had 0 Aboriginal representation and that in the future when procuring services that will be working with Aboriginal communities, there should always be an Aboriginal member of the procurement panel and that when that work involves a specific community, ideally that member is from that community and has a voice in who is undertaking that work. We believe the outcome would have looked very different should that have been the case.

If you are procuring services in the future, consider this representation as a minimum in the selection process.

Authored by Sean McCarthy for Impact Policy