A/HRC/15/37/Add.4 54. The right to self-determination, which is affirmed for indigenous peoples in article 3 of the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, is a foundational right, without which indigenous peoples’ other human rights, both collective and individual, cannot be fully enjoyed. Enhancing indigenous self-determination is also conducive to successful practical outcomes. As noted in the Overcoming Indigenous Disadvantage Report, “when [indigenous people] make their own decisions about what approaches to take and what resources to develop, they consistently out-perform [non-indigenous] decision-makers”.20 55. Although the Government recognizes the importance of collaboration with indigenous peoples, there is a continuing need to empower indigenous peoples to take control of their own affairs in all aspects of their lives. The Government should seek to decidedly include in its initiatives the goal of advancing indigenous self-determination, in particular by encouraging indigenous self-governance at the local level, ensuring indigenous participation in the design, delivery and monitoring of programmes, and developing culturally-appropriate programmes that incorporate and build on indigenous peoples’ own initiatives. 1. Local self-governance 56. Of concern to the Special Rapporteur is the apparent increased centralization of governance institutions in several states and the Northern Territory, at the expense of local, indigenous-run governance institutions. Most notably, starting in July 2008, the Northern Territory government consolidated 73 community-based governance councils into 9 larger shire governments. Given that the transition to the shire system in the Northern Territory is fairly recent, its impacts are not yet completely known. However, the Special Rapporteur received information related to several concerns, including: a potential loss of representation and control at the local level; the employment of shire staff without knowledge of local issues; the channelling of formerly community-based programmes and services through shires; the location of shire offices in urban centres; and the implementation of an electoral system that may result in communities with low populations being either under or unrepresented in the shire political structures. 57. The Special Rapporteur was particularly disturbed by situations in which the Government has revoked self-governance powers of Aboriginal people when communities have displayed shortcomings in managing their own affairs. The clearest example of this practice is the NTER, discussed in appendix B to this report. In addition, the Special Rapporteur visited the Swan Valley Nyungah community in Perth, Western Australia, where, because of supposed rampant alcoholism and abusive behaviour, including among the community’s principal leadership, the state of Western Australia legislatively revoked the management authority of the community, and placed it with the Aboriginal Affairs Planning Authority, a state entity, and evicted the community from its location.21 According to reports received by the Special Rapporteur, some of the community’s women and children, astoundingly, are now homeless and living on the streets while their community remains under lock and key, although the Government insists that all women and children were moved into state government housing. While emphasizing the need to take measures to address the extreme social problems faced by the Swan Valley community, the Special Rapporteur considers that the expulsion of all community members from their homes and community and revoking the community’s decision-making authority, is a troubling and ineffective approach to resolving the concerns, and is at odds with international standards. 20 21 GE.10-13887 Overcoming Indigenous Disadvantage, p. 653, citing Harvard Project on American Indian Economic Development 2003–04 (referring to the case of indigenous peoples in the United States of America). See Reserves (Reserve 43131) Act 2003. 15