Skip to main content
Download PDF
Download ePub

First Nations Australians’ self-determination in health and alcohol policy development: a Delphi study

Health Research Policy and Systems volume 20, Article number: 12 (2022) Cite this article

Abstract

Background

Recognition of the role of structural, cultural, political and social determinants of health is increasing. A key principle of each of these is self-determination, and according to the United Nations (2007), this is a right of Indigenous Peoples. For First Nations Australians, opportunities to exercise this right appear to be limited. This paper explores First Nations Australian communities’ responses to reducing alcohol-related harms and improving the health and well-being of their communities, with a focus on understanding perceptions and experiences of their self-determination. It is noted that while including First Nations Australians in policies is not in and of itself self-determination, recognition of this right in the processes of developing health and alcohol policies is a critical element. This study aims to identify expert opinion on what is needed for First Nations Australians’ self-determination in the development of health- and alcohol-related policy.

Methods

This study used the Delphi technique to translate an expert panel’s opinions into group consensus. Perspectives were sought from First Nations Australians (n = 9) and non-Indigenous Peoples (n = 11) with experience in developing, evaluating and/or advocating for alcohol interventions led by First Nations Australians. Using a web-based survey, this study employed three survey rounds to identify and then gain consensus regarding the elements required for First Nations Australians’ self-determination in policy development.

Results

Twenty panellists (n = 9 First Nations Australian) participated in at least one of the three surveys. Following the qualitative round 1 survey, six main themes, 60 subthemes and six examples of policy were identified for ranking in round 2. In round 2, consensus was reached with 67% of elements (n = 40/60). Elements that did not reach consensus were repeated in round 3, with additional elements (n = 5). Overall, consensus was reached on two thirds of elements (66%, n = 43/65).

Conclusions

Self-determination is complex, with different meaning in each context. Despite some evidence of self-determination, systemic change in many areas is needed, including in government. This study has identified a starting point, with the identification of elements and structural changes necessary to facilitate First Nations Australian community-led policy development approaches, which are vital to ensuring self-determination.

Peer Review reports

Background

Recognition of the role of structural, cultural, political and social determinants of health is increasing [1,2,3,4,5], particularly for First Nations AustraliansFootnote 1 [7, 8]. Despite this, the comparative health and well-being of First Nations Australians is significantly lower than that of other Australians [9,10,11]. Previous studies have described key elements needed to improve First Nations Australians’ health and well-being; these include recognition and removal of historical and ongoing colonization, dispossession, exclusion and discrimination, and the promotion of First Nations Australian-led decision-making [12,13,14]. The principle of self-determination, which was identified and recognized by the United Nations (UN) in the years after the Second World War, includes recognition of the right to determine one’s own political status, and to pursue social, economic and cultural development [15]. This is consistent with the collective right of self-determination in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights [16]. However, by construct, Indigenous Peoples were excluded from such rights until the 1960s [17]. Following decades of advocacy, the 2007 UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) acknowledged the vital importance of self-determination [18,19,20,21,22,23]. Australia initially opposed the UNDRIP but became a signatory in 2009, with some caveatsFootnote 2 [15, 18, 23–25].

Self-determination is the cornerstone needed to address the historical and ongoing trauma of colonization experienced by Indigenous Peoples, including First Nations Australians [7, 14, 26]. There are also many layers to self-determination, including both personal and community empowerment. While it is complex, challenging to define and means different things to different people in varying contexts [27,28,29,30], we define self-determination as “… the internationally recognised and on-going right of Indigenous Peoples to collectively determine their own pathway, within and outside of existing settler societies” [15].

The absence of treaties between Australian governments and First Nations Australians [31] has led to the “operationalization” of self-determination, to some extent, via government policy [32, 33]. This is in contrast to other former British colonies such as Aotearoa-New Zealand, where the Tiriti o Waitangi (Treaty of Waitangi) is a constitutional document [34]. For example, from the 1970s to mid-1990s, self-determination or self-management by First Nations Australians was an Australian Government policy [33]. A key feature of this legislation was the nationally representative Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission (ATSIC). ATSIC was created as a First Nations Australian-led body of community-elected representatives [35, 36] that was embedded in legislation at a federal level [37]. Its purpose was for First Nations Australians to have input into policy development and funding decisions [38]. ATSIC was disbanded in 2005 despite recommendations for it to continue [39], following a change in Australian Government leadership by then Prime Minister John Howard [32, 40]. Since then, various advisory committees with government-appointed membership have filled some aspects of the roles of ATSIC [41, 42].

First Nations Australian communities have a strong history of leading responses to reduce alcohol-, social- and health-related harms. Examples include supply reduction (e.g. purchasing the hotel/drinking club, and local area controls on availability such as dry areasFootnote 3 and accordsFootnote 4) [45, 46], harm reduction (e.g. night patrols,Footnote 5 sobering-up sheltersFootnote 6) [47,48,49,50], and demand reduction (e.g. campaigns to prevent fetal alcohol spectrum disorder, community-controlled residential treatment) [51,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43,44,45,46,47,48,49,50,51,52,53,54]. Community ownership and leadership have been identified as integral to the success of these initiatives [55,56,57,58].

A critical point is that simply including First Nations Australians in policy development does not equate to self-determination [30, 59, 60]. However, while the right to self-determination in the development of policy, including that related to health and alcohol, affecting First Nations Australians is necessary [60, 61], we were unable to find studies that demonstrated how self-determination could be achieved in this setting [15]. To address this knowledge gap, this study aims to identify expert opinion on what is needed for First Nations Australians’ self-determination in the development of health- and alcohol-related policy.

Methods

Study design

The Delphi technique (Delphi) is a multistage iterative survey approach that uses a panel of experts to translate individual opinions into group consensus [62,63,64,65]. A key feature is that Delphi allows for diverse perspectives and views [66], which is an essential feature in a study about self-determination, especially where there is a dearth of formal research reports [67]. A series of web-based surveys [65, 68] were used to ensure: participant anonymity [69]; individual perspectives without influence of other panellists [70]; controlled feedback of findings between survey rounds [62]; national contributions without the need for interstate travel [71]; and flexible non-onerous participation to suit each panellist [72,73,74]. It should be noted that this study was developed within the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, when travel between states/territories in Australia was restricted to only essential travel until November 2020 [71].

Formation of the panel

Selection criteria for the panel were as follows: age 18+ years; at least 5 years of professional experience in the health and/or alcohol and other drug (AOD) sectors; and professional involvement in development of policy related to health and alcohol. No definitive number of experts are required for a Delphi study, with variation based on the scope of the study and available resources [62, 75]. We aimed to recruit a diverse panel [76] in relation to gender, indigeneity, region (Australia-wide; remote through to urban contexts) and related professional experience and qualifications (clinical, research, policy, advocacy). Perspectives were also sought from non-Indigenous peoples with experience in developing, evaluating and/or advocating for alcohol interventions led by First Nations Australians.

Panel recruitment

All panellists were recruited using purposive sampling. Thirty-nine experts (68% First Nations Australian) were invited to participate by personalized email or phone call (AES). Of these, 31 experts had professional connections with the research team (AES, KL, MW, SA). The remainder (n = 8) were suggested for recruitment by other panellists. Even though objectivity is important, research with First Nations Australian communities requires interaction and accountability between the researchers and participants [73, 77, 78].

Ethics

Ethical approval was provided by the Curtin University Human Research Ethics Committee (HRE2019-0729) and the Central Australian Human Research Ethics Committee (CA-19-3525). Participation was opt-in and voluntary. Informed consent was sought electronically prior to the commencement of each survey.

Procedure

Data collection

Data were collected (by AES) using an electronic survey across three sequential rounds in September, October and December 2020. Inspired by the classic Delphi approach [62, 76], the purpose of round 1 was to gain panellists’ views and perspectives primarily via open-ended qualitative questions. Rounds 2 and 3 used structured questions, with open-text fields for panellists to expand on responses (Table 1). When appropriate, continuous (n = 10) or categorical (n = 3) Likert scales were used for ranking of response options [79].

Table 1 Summary of surveys by round
Full size table

Each survey was tested prior to distribution for usability and timeliness by members of the research team (AES, SA, MW, KL) and by First Nations and non-Indigenous Australians not involved in the study (n = 6). After survey finalization, a personal survey link was sent to each participant (by AES). Responses were analysed after each round, and a plain English summary was then emailed to panellists, along with the next survey. Survey links were active for 3 weeks, with up to four personalized reminders given, usually by AES. Panellists were also given the opportunity to complete the surveys by videoconference or phone interview (with AES). At the completion of round 3, panellists received a gift card to acknowledge their contribution to the study.

Round 1: survey

In round 1, the survey consisted of four sections (Table 1): (a) demographics (e.g. professional experience, qualifications, jurisdictions); (b) essential elements needed for the policy development processes to be described as involving self-determination; (c) degree of self-determination in examples of policy development processes, and the type of representation and methods needed to be inclusive of First Nations Australians; and (d) essential stages for First Nations Australians to be included in policy development and suggested examples.

Round 2: survey

In round 2, the survey aimed to seek consensus on seven questions, derived from round 1 analysis (Table 1). Q1–Q2: macro-levelFootnote 7 conditions and values necessary to achieve self-determination in policy. Q3–Q6: elements needed to enable self-determination in policy development processes; (Q3) macro-level conditions necessary for self-determination in policy development; (Q4) elements in decision-making processes; (Q5) types of representation; and (Q6) elements needed in policy implementation. As ranking of representation types (round 1C) did not achieve consensus, and panellists suggested other response options, these were integrated into Q5 in round 2. Q 7: Brief real-life vignettes were provided to show how Australian policy has been developed with First Nations Australians (suggested by panellists; prepared by AES). Two de-identified vignettes were examples of First Nations Australian community-specific alcohol harm minimization programs. The remaining vignettes were national examples of First Nations Australians being included in policy processes. Vignettes were ranked on perceived self-determination in policy development.

Round 3: survey

In round 3, we sought consensus on six questions and related elements that did not reach consensus in round 2. Questions focused on the following: (Q1) structural changes at a federal government level deemed necessary for First Nations Australians’ self-determination in policy development processes; (Q3) essentials for self-determination to be part of policy development processes; (Q4) types of representation needed; and (Q6) implementation. Round 3 also included elements suggested by panellists (related to Q3 and Q4). Q5 and Q7 were asked again (from round 2), with response categories amended based on panellists’ feedback.

Data analysis

All survey data were collected using Qualtrics [80], a web-based survey platform. Qualitative data were analysed (by AES) using content analysis [81]. Text-based responses were reviewed and thematically analysed [82]. Coding was reviewed by another author (KL). Responses were grouped into similar themes, which became round 2 questions, with the subthemes being elements that were ranked within each question. Additional checking from a third author (MW) ensured that data were appropriately categorized.

Consensus level was set at 80% agreement in panellists’ rankings [76, 83]. In rounds 2 and 3, the seven-point continuous Likert scales were collapsed into three categories (1–2: not self-determination; 3–5: possibly; 6–7: definitely self-determination). In round 2, the categorical responses for Q1 and Q2 were collapsed into three groups (1: non-negotiable and can be implemented now, and non-negotiable, but is aspirational and unlikely at present; 2: ideal but not necessary; and 3: not self-determination).

Results

Panel of experts

Twenty individuals (45% First Nations Australian) from six Australian states or territoriesFootnote 8 participated in at least one survey round. The majority of panellists (95%) completed two or more survey rounds, with 60% completing all three rounds (Table 2). Despite reaching a First Nations Australian majority prior to commencement, four experts withdrew and did not participate in any surveys. The time of the year and competing priorities (including increased work responsibilities related to COVID-19) were the main reasons reported by panellists for survey non-completion. One panellist preferred to complete rounds 2 and 3 via phone. Just over half (n = 11/20) of the panellists (n = 3 First Nations Australians) were in academic roles, with more than 200 years of combined experience. The remaining panellists were either executive officers (n = 5) or senior program/area managers (n = 4), with more than 170 years of combined professional experience in First Nations Australian community-led organizations and more than 100 years of experience on national or state advisory committees (health and AOD).

Table 2 Expert panel in a study of self-determination in policy development processes (n = 20)
Full size table

Round 1

Seventeen panellists completed the round 1 survey. Six main themes (questions) (Table 1) and 60 related subthemes (elements) (Table 3) were identified. The themes were multilayered, recognizing that changes at a macro (federal government) through to micro Footnote 9 level were needed to develop and implement policy with First Nations Australian communities. Panellists identified that First Nations Australians’ self-determination in policy development requires considerations in the following areas: (1) support from the federal government at a macro level; (2) values underpinning the entire process; (3) specific elements essential to the entire policy process; (4) decision-making within the policy development process; (5) First Nations Australian representation; and (6) essential elements for implementation. In addition, panellists suggested 10 examples of First Nations Australians’ self-determination in policy development processes, six of which were included as real-life vignettes (Q7).

Table 3 Consensus ranking of elements needed for self-determination in policy development
Full size table

Types of First Nations Australian representation in policy processes. No elements reached more than 80% agreement when ranking types of representation (Fig. 1). One element (communities defining representation) was ranked by all panellists as being “definitely” (59%) or “possibly” (41%) self-determination. Of the remaining elements, involvement as stakeholders was ranked by just over one third (35%) of panellists as “definitely not self-determination”.

Fig. 1
figure 1

Ranking of First Nations Australian representation in policy development

Full size image

Ways of including First Nations Australians in policy processes. Ways that First Nations Australians can be included in policy development processes did not reach consensus (Table 4). Three elements were ranked by all panellists as being “possibly or definitely self-determination”: First Nations Australian-defined approach; First Nations Australian-defined representative body/group; and First Nations Australian-led lobbying. At the other end of the scale, two elements were ranked as “not self-determination”: general consultation (35%) and policy that is developed via a specific representative body (24%). Given this lack of consensus, it was clear that the elements being ranked were specific to particular processes, and many were already integrated in the round 2 questions; thus this question was excluded from subsequent rounds.

Table 4 Ways of including First Nations Australians in policy development (n = 17) (round 1)
Full size table

Stages of First Nations Australian inclusion in policy processes. All panellists had “directly seen or been involved in” policy processes where First Nations Australians were included through “consultation” (Fig. 2). Just four in 10 panellists (n = 7/17, 41%) had directly seen or been involved in processes that included First Nations Australians at all stages (agenda-setting through to evaluation). Panellists had witnessed or been involved in policy processes that included First Nations Australians in 47–65% of the remaining stages (Fig. 2). Two panellists had seen or been involved in policy processes that had not included First Nations Australians at all. All but one panellist (94%) said that First Nations Australians should be included in all stages of the policy development process. The one dissenting panellist asserted that monitoring and evaluation of policy should be independent.

Fig. 2
figure 2

Stages of First Nations Australians’ inclusion in policy development

Full size image

Rounds 2 and 3

In round 2, panellists agreed on more than two thirds of the elements needed for First Nations Australians’ self-determination to be evidenced in policy development processes (Q1–Q6: n = 40/60, 67%; Table 3). These are detailed below. An additional five elements were suggested for ranking in round 3. In round 3, an additional three elements reached consensus (Q1–6: n = 43/65, 66%). Excluding Q5, between 54 and 100% of elements reached consensus in each question. Little agreement was reached on the considerations for self-determination in the real-life vignettes provided (Q7).

Q1 and Q2: Macro-level conditions and values needed in the policy development process. In round 2, there was almost universal agreement in the ranking of both the macro-level conditions necessary for self-determination (Q1: n = 5/6, 83%) and the underlying values that should be in place (Q2: n = 8/8, 100%) in policy development processes (Table 3). One element—recognition and support for the role of Aboriginal community-controlled organizations to ensure a First Nations Australian voice—was ranked “non-negotiable and can be implemented now” by 89% of panellists. All other statements in Q1 and Q2 were ranked by the majority of panellists (83–94%) as either “non-negotiable and can be implemented now” or “non-negotiable, but is aspirational” (Table 1). Despite not reaching consensus in round 2, nearly nine in 10 panellists (n = 15/17, 88%) agreed in round 3 that “change across the wider government and policy systems to address and remove the structural determinants of health” is required to ensure First Nations Australians’ self-determination in policy development processes. The detailed results are available [see Additional files 1, 2 and 3].

Q3: Essentials in the process of developing policy. The majority of essential elements necessary for self-determination in the process of developing policy reached agreement (Table 3). In round 2, three quarters of elements (n = 12/16, 75%) reached consensus and an additional two elements were proposed (two-way sharing and data sovereignty). In round 3, consensus was achieved in the ranking of nearly eight in 10 elements (n = 14/18, 78%). Of these, all were ranked as “definitely needed for self-determination”. Two elements had 100% agreement: “receive feedback promptly and in a suitable format” and “given adequate time for decision-making”. In round 3, elements that did not reach consensus were all ranked as “definitely needed” by half to three quarters of panellists (53–76%). The detailed results are available [see Additional files 1 and 4].

Q4: Decision-making processes in policy processes. In round 2, consensus was reached for seven out of 10 (70%) elements regarding the nature of decision-making in policy development to ensure First Nations Australians’ self-determination (Table 3). In round 2, an additional three elements were suggested: (1) are not circumvented or changed at higher tiersFootnote 10 of government; (2) are balanced between the evidence base and community preferences; and (3) give First Nations Australian community-controlled organizations collective veto power at all levels.

All elements that reached consensus were ranked as “definitely necessary for self-determination”. Total agreement (100%) was reached for two elements (participatory and transparent for all parties; involves First Nations Australians). In round 3, no further agreement was reached for the remaining six elements (n = 7/13, 56%; Table 3). Elements that did not reach consensus were ranked as “definitely needed” by just under half to three quarters of panellists (round 3: 47–76%). The detailed results are available [see Additional files 1 and 5].

Q5: Representation by First Nations Australians in policy processes. As in round 1, minimal consensus was achieved in relation to the types of First Nations Australian representation that is necessary for self-determination in policy development. In round 2, just two items reached consensus (n = 2/12, 16%; Fig. 1). Panellists agreed on two types of First Nations Australian representation (i.e. to include individuals from affected/impacted communities, 89%; and locally representative/community-controlled organizations, 83%). No further consensus was reached in round 3. As presented in Fig. 1, there were three elements (round 1: stakeholders; round 2: public servants; round 3: public servants and elected government officials) where the combined rankings of “definitely” and “possibly” self-determination did not achieve consensus (59–73%). In round 3, four in 10 (41%) panellists ranked public servants’ inclusion as “not self-determination”.

Q6: Factors essential in the implementation of policy. In round 2, panellists agreed on three quarters of the elements that were seen as being necessary in the process of policy implementation (n = 6/8, 75%; Table 3). Total agreement was achieved for three elements that were “definitely needed for self-determination” (i.e. evaluated and monitored with prompt response to feedback; not discriminatory against First Nations Australians’ human rights; and respectful of the priorities of First Nations Australians and their communities). In round 3, the remaining elements (n = 2) had similar rankings to round 2 but did not exceed 76% agreement. The detailed results are available [see Additional files 1 and 6].

Q7: Real-life vignettes of First Nations Australian involvement in policy development processes. In round 2, panellists ranked the degree of self-determination they believed was evident in six real-life vignettes (Table 5). Consensus was achieved in one example, community-led restrictions on takeaway alcohol in Fitzroy Crossing [85, 86]. In round 3, panellists considered which factors were important when considering evidence of self-determination in the vignettes provided. In three examples, consensus was reached with one element—representation of First Nations Australians in the policy development process (ranked 69–94% across the examples; Table 5). Consensus was not reached for the other elements: the stage that First Nations Australians were involved in (31–69%); how First Nations Australians were involved (44–63%); and the aim of the policy (19–38%).

Table 5 Ranking of examples of First Nations Australians’ involvement in policy development (Q7)
Full size table

Discussion

To our knowledge, this is the first study to explore what is necessary for First Nations Australians to achieve self-determination in the development of health- and alcohol-related policy. While self-determination is recognized as important to improve health and well-being [87,88,89], how First Nations Australians have been supported to action it in health and alcohol policy development is limited [32, 60, 90]. The expert panellists identified a series of complex, interrelated and interactive elements that would be needed to scaffold First Nations Australians’ self-determination in policy development processes. Three factors warrant consideration: (1) elements that would help to enable self-determination in policy development do not exist in isolation; (2) community-first or “ground-up” approaches to policy development are integral; (3) the impact of the current Australian policy context (e.g. geopolitical factors) in which policies on health and alcohol would sit.

Interrelated nature of elements needed for self-determination to be evident in policy development processes

Panellists agreed that First Nations Australians need to be involved in all stages of the policy process for self-determination to be possible (i.e. agenda-setting, consultation, policy creation, implementation, monitoring and evaluation). The lack of consensus achieved when panellists were asked to rate six “real-life” examples (Table 5) reflects Larsen’s [91] findings that self-determination in policy development may not be present across all stages. For example, it is possible for self-determination to be evident in some stages of the policy process and completely absent in others [15, 91]. Further to this, the type of representation of First Nations Australians (Fig. 1) needs careful consideration. These results indicate and support recent pleas for representation beyond experts, individuals and “blanket” representation, as these are not self-determination or appropriate [15, 59].

Representation was seen as involving First Nations Australians in all stages of policy development by all but one panellist. The one dissenting panellist explained that monitoring and evaluation should be conducted independently (i.e. with no assumption that it be conducted by First Nations Australians). While there is a need for independence in the monitoring and evaluation of policy, the Productivity Commission report (2020) positions the role of First Nations Australians at the epicentre when evaluating policy that affects them and their communities [92]. It is clear that First Nations Australians must be involved throughout the development of policy, but representation remains contentious, as the views are as diverse as the communities and Peoples involved.

“Ground-up” policy approach

Panellists agreed that policy processes should be led and defined by First Nations Australians from the “ground-up”. However, panellists suggested that this can only be achieved when community priorities and voices are placed first [28, 58, 93]. For this to happen, relationships with First Nations Australian communities need to be prioritized and their diversity recognized [7]. Panellists agreed that with meaningful community engagement and involvement throughout the policy development process, community ownership can be created [28, 32], as well as a policy that is directly relevant to the affected community [93,94,95].

The impact of the current Australian health and alcohol policy context on achieving self-determination

While all panellists acknowledged the right to self-determination, some saw it as a “right” irrespective of the current policy context. In contrast, other panellists took a pragmatic approach and saw self-determination as an aspiration in the current Australian geopolitical landscape. Nonetheless, panellists agreed that structural change [96] was required for self-determination to have a better chance at success. For example, the Australian government recently endorsed and supported a regionalized consultation process to be undertaken to recognize First Nations Australians in the Australian Constitution. Presented with the outcome of this consultative process in May 2017—the Uluru Statement from the Heart—the prime ministers have since vetoed the request for constitutional recognition of First Nations Australian voices in parliament [97, 98], opting instead for legislative-based rights [99].

Another geopolitical issue worthy of consideration is how alcohol-related policy is contextualized, in contrast to other types of health-related policy [57]. In Australia, efforts to develop alcohol-related policy have been underpinned by protectionism [100], community safety [101], justice and criminalization [102, 103]. This approach dismisses the historical and health context of alcohol consumption by First Nations Australians [57]. It also undermines the valuable perspectives of First Nations Australian community-controlled health organizations in the development of alcohol-related policy. First Nations Australian community-controlled organizations have grown from a rich history of self-determination [104, 105]. From an individual community level through to regional and state/territory umbrella affiliates, community-controlled organizations have long-standing systems in place to represent their local communities. This would contribute unique insights to developing alcohol-related policy within a health context [27, 32, 45, 57]. To ensure diversity of First Nations Australian representation, community-controlled health organizations should be included as one source, alongside a spectrum of other types (or groups) of First Nations Australian representation [27, 32].

Limitations

This study has a number of limitations that need to be considered. The lack of randomness in recruitment is often cited as a major criticism of Delphi studies [62, 106], as the panel of experts is selected by the research team. However, targeted recruitment of panellists with extensive knowledge and experience in a specific area of study has been shown to be a key strength of Delphi studies [75]. In this study, care was taken to assemble a panel with specific knowledge and expertise. The panel’s rich experience as leaders in their respective fields provided an evidenced-based opinion from which consensus was sought. Panellists with limited technology access or comfort may have preferred a phone or face-to-face interview rather than an online survey (n = 1 panellist chose to complete phone surveys). A varied response rate (85–90%) was achieved across the three rounds due to panellists’ professional commitments and other priorities (including n = 9/20 who were involved in or led local COVID-19 responses). The existing relationships between the research team and panellists may also be seen as a potential source of bias. The qualitative approach used in round 1 assisted in mitigating this, as panellists presented a diverse range of views and perspectives and were not responding to the views of the research team. While during 2020 Australia managed to control the spread of COVID-19, the timing of this study (September–December 2020) may have influenced the choices made by panellists [71]. The focus placed on self-determination added complexity to the study, particularly during analysis. Most Delphi studies use discrete categorical responses [107]. However, this study sought to preserve the varying shades of what constitutes self-determination and the panellists’ right to cast their vote on survey questions using a continuous ranking scale [108].

Conclusion

Systemic change is needed for self-determination by First Nations Australians to be evident in the development of health and alcohol policy. Changes are necessary at each level of government, as well as in the process of developing policy, in order for First Nations Australians’ self-determination. The diversity and polarity of panellists’ views in this study highlight the complexities in defining self-determination, especially within the health and alcohol policy development context. Closer examination of specific policies locally is needed to assess the level of self-determination that First Nations Australians have in the development of health- and alcohol-related policies. While efficient for policy-makers, policy development processes led by policy-makers was seen by panellists as not self-determination. As long as the processes are defined by the government, First Nations Australians will not have self-determination. Recognition of First Nations Australians’ right to—not just a principle of—self-determination is vital to improve their health and well-being. This recognition, along with community-led approaches, and embedding of this right within state and federal government constitutions are key.

Availability of data and materials

Data sharing is not applicable to this article as no datasets were generated or analysed during the current study.

Notes

  1. “First Nations Australians” has been used to collectively refer to all the Peoples within Australia also known as: “Indigenous”, “Aboriginal” and “Torres Strait Islander”. This phrase has been used with consideration and recognition of the diversity of nations, peoples and cultures that continue to live and care for the lands now referred to as Australia, the islands of the Torres Strait and the waters surrounding them [6].

  2. Australia (Canada, New Zealand, and the United States of America) objected to the UNDRIP on the grounds of two articles: requiring Indigenous Peoples’ consent in the development of policy (Article 19) and use of land and resources (Article 32) [15, 18, 23,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25].

  3. “Dry areas” are areas where the public consumption, and sometimes possession, of alcohol is not permitted [43, 44].

  4. “Accords” are locally negotiated agreements between the retailers and community, regarding the sale and availability of alcohol [43].

  5. “Night patrols” are First Nations Australian community-initiated groups that travel around the local community with the primary purpose of reducing alcohol-related social harms (e.g. public intoxication, interpersonal violence) [47, 48].

  6. “Sobering-up shelters” are facilities where intoxicated individuals are diverted from police lockups and public spaces to a safe place where they can recover. While they may be encouraged to seek further assistance once sober, the primary purpose is to focus on immediate safety [49, 50].

  7. “Macro”: These are elements or levels that are large or broad in scope. Within this context, these are overarching approaches by the Australian Government, which may not immediately or directly affect First Nations Australians’ lives.

  8. The Commonwealth of Australia is made up of six states and two mainland territories (Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory). The mainland territories have the same status as the states, except the Australian Government can amend and rescind any legislation enacted by the Territory governments [84].

  9. “Micro”: These are smaller elements that are more tangible, and ideally evident in each policy development process.

  10. Within the Australian context, in addition to the Australian federal government, there are another two levels of formal government. Each state and mainland territory has a government; then within each of these are local government councils. Each level of government has different responsibilities in the development of health- and alcohol-related policy (84).

Abbreviations

ATSIC:

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission

COVID-19:

Coronavirus disease 2019, caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)

Delphi:

Delphi technique

Q1–Q7:

Question 1 through to question 7

UNDRIP:

United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples

References

  1. Gracey M, King M. Indigenous health part 1: determinants and disease patterns. The Lancet. 2009;374(9683):65–75. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0140-6736(09)60914-4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. UN News Service. United Nations Adopts Declaration on Rights of Indigenous Peoples 2007. 2 July 2012. Available: http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=23794&Cr=indigenous&Cr1.

  3. King M, Smith A, Gracey M. Indigenous health part 2: the underlying causes of the health gap. The Lancet. 2009;374(9683):76–85. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0140-6736(09)60827-8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Kickbusch I. The political determinants of health—10 years on. Br Med J (BMJ). 2015. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.h81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Brown N. Promoting a social and cultural determinants approach to Aborignal and Torres Strait Islander affairs 2014. Available: http://www.checkup.org.au/icms_docs/183362_Prof_Ngiare_Brown.pdf.

  6. Australian Capital Territory Council of Social Services (ACTCOSS). Preferences in terminology when referring to Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander peoples Online: Australian Capital Territory Council of Social Services; 2016. Available: https://www.actcoss.org.au/sites/default/files/public/publications/gulanga-good-practice-guide-preferences-terminology-referring-to-aboriginal-torres-strait-islander-peoples.pdf.

  7. Lowitja Institute. Culture is key: towards cultural determination-driven health policy. Final report. Canberra: Lowitja Institute; 2021. https://doi.org/10.48455/k9vd-zp46

  8. Commonwealth of Australia Department of Health. My Life My Lead: Opportunities for strengthening approaches to the social determinants and cultural determinants of Indigenous health. Report on the national consultations Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia, Department of Health; 2017. Available: https://www1.health.gov.au/internet/main/publishing.nsf/Content/D2F6B905F3F667DACA2580D400014BF1/$File/My%20Life%20My%20Lead%20Consultation%20Report.pdf.

  9. Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (AIHW). Australia’s health 2020 data insights. Australia’s health series no. 17. Cat. no. AUS 231. Canberra: Australian Institute of Health and Welfare; 2020.

  10. Australian Government Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet. Closing the Gap Report 2020. Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia; 2020. Available: https://ctgreport.niaa.gov.au/.

  11. Lowitja Institute. Leadership and legacy through crises: keeping our mob safe. Prepared by the Lowitja Institute for the Close the Gap Campaign Steering Committee. Melbourne: The Close the Gap Campaign Steering Committee; 2021. Available: https://humanrights.gov.au/our-work/aboriginal-and-torres-strait-islander-social-justice/publications/close-gap-2021.

  12. O’Mara P. The spirit of the tent embassy: 40 years on. Med J Aust. 2012;197(1):9–10. https://doi.org/10.5694/mja12.10829.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Gottlieb K. The Nuka System of Care: improving health through ownership and relationships. Int J Circumpolar Health. 2013. https://doi.org/10.3402/ijch.v72i0.21118.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. Salmon M, Doery K, Dance P, Chapman J, Gilbert R, Williams R et al. Defining the Indefinable: descriptors of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples’ cultures and their links to health and wellbeing. Canberra: Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Health Team, Research School of Population Health, The Australian National University; 2019. Available: https://openresearch-repository.anu.edu.au/bitstream/1885/148406/8/Defining_the_Indefinable_WEB2_FINAL.pdf.

  15. Stearne AE, Allsop S, Shakeshaft A, Symons M, Wright M. Identifying how the principles of self-determination could be applied to create effective alcohol policy for First Nations Australians: synthesising the lessons from the development of general public policy. Int J Drug Policy. 2021. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.drugpo.2021.103260.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Universal Declaration of Human Rights 1948 (United Nations). Available: https://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/.

  17. Webb J. Indigenous peoples and the right to self determination. J Indig Policy. 2012;7(13):75–102.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Boutilier S. Free, prior, and informed consent and reconciliation in Canada: proposals to implement Articles 19 and 32 of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Western J Legal Stud. 2017; 7(1).

  19. Burger J. Indigenous Peoples in Commonwealth countries: the legacy of the past and present-day struggles for self-determination. The Round Table. 2013;102(4):333–42. https://doi.org/10.1080/00358533.2013.795010.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Nicol H. From territory to rights: new foundations for conceptualising Indigenous sovereignty. Geopolitics. 2016;22(4):794–814. https://doi.org/10.1080/14650045.2016.1264055.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Newcomb ST. The UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and the paradigm of domination. Griffith Law Rev. 2011;20(3):578–607. https://doi.org/10.1080/10383441.2011.10854711.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Belanger YD. The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and urban Aboriginal self-determination in Canada: a preliminary assessment. Aboriginal Policy Stud. 2011;1(1):132–61. https://doi.org/10.5663/aps.v1i1.10134.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People 2007 (United Nations) Available: https://www.un.org/development/desa/indigenouspeoples/declaration-on-the-rights-of-indigenous-peoples.html.

  24. Cowan A. UNDRIP and the Intervention: Indigenous self-determination, participation, and racial discrimination in the Northern Territory of Australia Indigenous rights in the Pacific Rim. Pacific Rim Law Policy J. 2013;22(2):247–310.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Crook JR. United States joins Australia and New Zealand in criticizing proposed declaration on Indigenous Peoples’ rights. Am J Int Law. 2007;101(1):211–3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Butler TL, Anderson K, Garvey G, Cunningham J, Ratcliffe J, Tong A, et al. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people’s domains of wellbeing: a comprehensive literature review. Soc Sci Med. 2019;233:138–57. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2019.06.004.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Mazel O. Indigenous health and human rights: a reflection on law and culture. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2018. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph15040789.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  28. Behrendt L. Self-determination and Indigenous policy: the rights framework and practical outcomes. J Indig Policy. 2002; (1).

  29. Behrendt L, Vivian A. Indigenous self-determination and the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities: a framework for discussion. Occassional Paper. Victoria: Victorian Equal Opportunity and Human Rights Commission; 2010. Available: https://www.humanrightscommission.vic.gov.au/index.php/our-resources-and-publications/charter-reports/item/170-indigenous-self-determination-and-the-charter-of-human-rights-and-responsibilities-a-framework-for-discussion-mar-2010.

  30. Te Hiwi BP. “What is the Spirit of this Gathering?” Indigenous Sport Policy-Makers and Self-Determination in Canada. Int Indig Policy J. 2014. https://doi.org/10.18584/iipj.2014.5.4.6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. RMIT Fact Check. Fact check: Linda Burney says Australia is the only first world nation with a colonial history that doesn’t recognise its first people in its constitution. Is she correct? ABC Online. [Internet] 2019. [Cited 2021–06–22]. Available: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-10-10/fact-check3a-is-australia-the-only-first-world-nation-with-a-c/11583706.

  32. Anderson I. Indigenous Australia and health rights. J Law Med. 2008;15(5):760–72.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Attwood B, Markus A. The 1967 referendum: race, power and the Australian Constitution. 2nd ed. Canberra: Aboriginal Studies Press; 2007.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Te Puni Kökiri. He Tirohanga ö Kawa ki te Tiriti o Waitangi: a guide to the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi as expressed by the courts and the Waitangi Tribunal. Wellington: Te Puni Kökiri; 2001. Available: https://www.tpk.govt.nz/en/a-matou-mohiotanga/crownmaori-relations/he-tirohanga-o-kawa-ki-te-tiriti-o-waitangi.

  35. The Senate Select Committee on the Administration of Indigenous Affairs. After ATSIC—Life in the mainstream? Canberra: The Senate Select Committee on the Administration of Indigenous Affairs; 2005. Available: https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Former_Committees/indigenousaffairs/report/final/index.

  36. Pratt A, Bennett S. The end of ATSIC and the future administration of Indigenous affairs Curr Issues Brief 2004; 2004–05(4).

  37. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission Act 1989 (Cth) [cited 2019–05–14]. Available: https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/C2004A03898.

  38. House Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs. Inquiry into Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander community control, management and resources 1990. Available: https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/reports/1990/1990PP137report.

  39. Hannaford J, Huggins J, Collins B. In the hands of the regions: a new ATSIC Report of the Review of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission. Canberra. 2003. Available: http://old.antarqld.org.au/pdf/ATSIC_review_report.pdf.

  40. Palmer K. ATSIC: origins and issues for the future a critical review of public domain research and other materials. Canberra: Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies (AIATSIS); 2004. Available: https://aiatsis.gov.au/publication/35681.

  41. Lawrence R, Gibson C. Obliging Indigenous citizens? Cult Stud. 2007;21(4–5):650–71. https://doi.org/10.1080/09502380701279002.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Walden I. Talking back to policy: Aboriginal participation in policy making. Community research report. Sydney: University of New South Wales; 2016.

    Google Scholar 

  43. National Drug Research Institute (NDRI), Chikritzhs T, Gray D, Lyons Z, Saggers S. Restrictions on the sale and supply of alcohol: evidence and outcomes. Perth: National Drug Research Institute, Curtin University of Technology; 2007.

    Google Scholar 

  44. O’Connor R. A case of what might have been: some reflections on the new ‘two kilometre law’ in the Northern Territory. Anthropol Forum. 1984;5(2):201–7. https://doi.org/10.1080/00664677.1983.9967347.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Brady M. Teaching ‘Proper’ Drinking?: clubs and pubs in Indigenous Australia. Canberra: ANU Press; 2017.

  46. Kavanagh M. Curtin Springs roadhouse: ten years of community struggle. Indig Law Bull. 1999;4(19):15–7.

    Google Scholar 

  47. Blagg H, Valuri G. An overview of night patrol services in Australia. Canberra: Attorney-General’s Department in partnership with the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission; 2003.

  48. Curtis D. Julalikari Council’s community night patrol. In: McKillop S, editor. Aboriginal Justice Issues Proceedings of a Conference Held 23–25 June 1992 (AIC Conference Proceedings; no 21); Canberra: Australian Institute of Criminology; 1993. 73–8. Available: http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/previous%20series/proceedings/1-27/21.aspx.

  49. Spink J, Gaff B, Watson C. The Alice Springs sobering-up shelter ‘five years down the track’. 1991 Winter School in the Sun Proceedings of The Winter School in the Sun Conference, Brisbane; Brisbane: Queensland Alcohol and Drug Authority; 1991;223–30.

  50. McDonald D. Sobering-up shelters for people found intoxicated in public places: the Northern Territory Experience. Unpublished Paper Typescript, 12 pages; 1986.

  51. Chenhall R. Benelong’s Haven: an anthropological study of an Australian Aboriginal rehabilitation centre. Doctor of Philosophy. London: University of London; 2002.

  52. Chenhall R. Benelong’s Haven: recovery from alcohol and drug abuse within an Aboriginal Australian residential treatment centre. Melbourne: Melbourne University Press; 2007.

  53. James DB, Lee KSK, Patrao T, Courtney RJ, Conigrave KM, Shakeshaft A. Understanding the client characteristics of Aboriginal residential alcohol and other drug rehabilitation services in New South Wales, Australia. Addict Sci Clin Pract. 2020;15(1):27. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13722-020-00193-8.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  54. Marninwarntikura. The Marulu strategy: Making FASD history. Fitzroy Crossing. 2017. Available: https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/1502/9380/files/Marulu_Strategy-2017.pdf?12599420493714956227.

  55. Gray D, Saggers S, Sputore B, Bourbon D. What works? A review of evaluated alcohol misuse interventions among Aboriginal Australians. Addiction. 2000;95(1):11–22. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1360-0443.2000.951113.x.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. d’Abbs P. Alcohol policy in the Northern Territory: toward a critique and refocusing 2017. https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.20128.69125.

  57. Brady M. Indigenous Australia and alcohol policy: meeting difference with indifference. Sydney: UNSW Press; 2004.

    Google Scholar 

  58. Bourbon D, Saggers S, Gray D. Indigenous Australians and Liquor Licensing Legislation. Perth: National Centre for Research into the Prevention of Drug Abuse Curtin University of Technology; 1999.

  59. Turner P. The long cry of Indigenous Peoples to be heard: a defining moment in Australia. Australia and the World Annual Lecture; National Press Club, Canberra 2020. Available: https://nacchocommunique.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/pat-turner-australia-and-the-world-annual-lecture-30.09.20.pdf.

  60. George E, Mackean T, Baum F, Fisher M. Social determinants of Indigenous health and Indigenous rights in policy: a scoping review and analysis of problem representation. Int Indig Policy J. 2019;10(2):1–25. https://doi.org/10.18584/iipj.2019.10.2.4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. Garces-Ozanne A, Kalu EI, Audas R. The effect of empowerment and self-determination on health outcomes. Health Educ Behav. 2016;43(6):623–31. https://doi.org/10.1177/1090198116667665.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  62. Hasson F, Keeney S, McKenna H. Research guidelines for the Delphi survey technique. J Adv Nursing. 2000;32(4):1008–15. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2648.2000.t01-1-01567.x.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  63. Dalkey N, Helmer O. An experimental application of the DELPHI method to the use of experts. Manage Sci. 1963;9(3):458–67. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.9.3.458.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  64. Zawaly K, Kerse N, Tippett L, Buetow S. Cognitive-load of activities for Māori and non-Māori: a New Zealand consensus. Spotlight Explor Res Health. 2019. https://doi.org/10.35831/sor.erh.08262019kz.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  65. Rowe G, Wright G. The Delphi technique as a forecasting tool: issues and analysis. Int J Forecast. 1999;15(4):353–75. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0169-2070(99)00018-7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  66. Korcha RA, Witbrodt J, Cherpitel CJ, Ye Y, Andreceutti G, Kang J, et al. Development of the international alcohol policy and injury index. Pan Am J Public Health (Revista Panamericana de Salud Pública). 2018. https://doi.org/10.26633/RPSP.2018.6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  67. Keeney S, McKenna H, Hasson F. The Delphi technique in nursing and health research. Malaysia: Wiley; 2011.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  68. Loughlin KG, Moore LF. Using Delphi to achieve congruent objectives and activities in a pediatrics department. J Med Educ. 1979;54(2):101–6. https://doi.org/10.1097/00001888-197902000-00006.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  69. McKenna H. The Delphi technique: a worthwhile research approach for nursing? J Adv Nursing. 1994;19(6):1221–5. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2648.1994.tb01207.x.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  70. von der Gracht HA. Consensus measurement in Delphi studies. Technol Forecast Social Change. 2012;79(8):1525–36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2012.04.013.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  71. Beck MJ, Hensher DA. Insights into the impact of COVID-19 on household travel and activities in Australia—the early days under restrictions. Transp Policy. 2020;96:76–93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2020.07.001.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  72. McMillan SS, Kelly F, Sav A, Kendall E, King MA, Whitty JA, et al. Using the Nominal Group Technique: how to analyse across multiple groups. Health Serv Outcomes Res Methodol. 2014;14(3):92–108. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10742-014-0121-1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  73. National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC). National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Human Research 2007 (updated 2018). Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia; 2018. Available: https://nhmrc.gov.au/about-us/publications/national-statement-ethical-conduct-human-research-2007-updated-2018#block-views-block-file-attachments-content-block-1.

  74. National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC). Ethical conduct in research with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples and communities: Guidelines for researchers and stakeholders. Canberra: National Health and Medical Research Council; 2018. Available: http://www.nhmrc.gov.au/guidelines-publications/ind2.

  75. Powell C. The Delphi technique: myths and realities. J Adv Nursing. 2003;41(4):376–82. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2648.2003.02537.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  76. Keeney S, Hasson F, McKenna H. Consulting the oracle: ten lessons from using the Delphi technique in nursing research. J Adv Nursing. 2006;53(2):205–12. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2648.2006.03716.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  77. National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC). Researching Right Way—Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander health research ethics: a domestic and international review. Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia; 2013. Available: https://nhmrc.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/Indigenous%20guidelines/evaluation-literature-review-atsi-research-ethics.pdf.

  78. Dreise T. On our terms: obtaining Aboriginal community consent for social research: a literature review and case study: AANSW; 2018. Available: https://www.aboriginalaffairs.nsw.gov.au/pdfs/new-knowledge/publications/on-our-terms-FINAL.pdf.

  79. DeCastellarnau A. A classification of response scale characteristics that affect data quality: a literature review. Qual Quant. 2018;52(4):1523–59. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-017-0533-4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  80. Qualtrics. Qualtirics Software. August 2020 ed. Provo, Utah, USA. 2005.

  81. Erlingsson C, Brysiewicz P. A hands-on guide to doing content analysis. Afr J Emerg Med. 2017;7(3):93–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.afjem.2017.08.001.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  82. Nowell LS, Norris JM, White DE, Moules NJ. Thematic analysis. Int J Qual Methods. 2017. https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406917733847.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  83. Dale E, Conigrave KM, Kelly PJ, Ivers R, Clapham K, Lee KSK. A Delphi yarn: applying Indigenous knowledges to enhance the cultural utility of SMART Recovery Australia. Addict Sci Clin Pract. 2021;16(1):2. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13722-020-00212-8.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  84. Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (AIHW). Australia’s health 2018. Canberra: Australian Institute of Health and Welfare; 2018. https://doi.org/10.25816/5ec1e56f25480.

  85. Western Australia Department of Health Drug and Alcohol Office. Fitzroy Crossing Liquor Restriction October to December 2007: Interim Report. Developed for the Fitzroy Crossing Alcohol and Other Drug Management Committee: Government of Western Australia; 2008. Available: http://www.dao.health.wa.gov.au/IntheMedia/FitzroyValleyLiquorRestrictionReport/tabid/237/Default.aspx.

  86. Western Australia Department of Health Drug and Alcohol Office. Fitzroy Crossing Liquor Restriction October 2007 to September 2008 Twelve Month Report: Government of Western Australia; 2009. Available: http://www.dao.health.wa.gov.au/IntheMedia/FitzroyValleyLiquorRestrictionReport/tabid/237/Default.aspx.

  87. Wilkinson R, Marmot M. World Health Organization (WHO), Regional Office for Europe, WHO Centre for Urban Health (Europe), International Centre for Health and Society. Social determinants of health: the solid facts. Copenhagen: WHO Regional Office for Europe; 1998. Available: https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/108082.

  88. Marmot M. Social determinants and the health of Indigenous Australians. Med J Aust. 2011;194(10):512–3. https://doi.org/10.5694/j.1326-5377.2011.tb03086.x.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  89. Marmot M. The Health Gap: the challenge of an unequal world. London & New York: Bloomsbury; 2015.

    Google Scholar 

  90. Perche D. Recalibrating the machinery of government for Indigenous affairs: towards a new policy design for self-determination. Aust J Public Adm. 2018;77(S1):S28–36. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8500.12356.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  91. Larsen RK. Impact assessment and indigenous self-determination: a scalar framework of participation options. Impact Assess Proj Apprais. 2017;36(3):208–19. https://doi.org/10.1080/14615517.2017.1390874.

  92. Productivity Commission. Indigenous Evaluation Strategy. Canberra: productivity Commission; 2020. Available: https://www.pc.gov.au/inquiries/completed/indigenous-evaluation/strategy.

  93. Robertson JA, Conigrave KM, Ivers R, Usher K, Clough AR. Translation of tobacco policy into practice in disadvantaged and marginalized subpopulations: a study of challenges and opportunities in remote Australian Indigenous communities. Health Res Policy Syst. 2012;10:23. https://doi.org/10.1186/1478-4505-10-23.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  94. Conigrave K, Proude E, d’Abbs P. Evaluation of the Groote Eylandt and Bickerton Island Alcohol Management System. A report produced for the Department of Justice, Northern Territory Government. Darwin: Department of Justice Northern Territory Government; 2007. Available: https://www.webcitation.org/6T2fibBAy.

  95. Conigrave K, Proude E, d’Abbs P. Alcohol as a privilege, not a right: evaluation of the Groote Eylandt and Bickerton Island alcohol management system. Drug Alcohol Rev. 2009; 28(Nov):[A12]. Available: http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/122652602/issue.

  96. Davis M. Constitutional recognition for Indigenous Australians must involve structural change, not mere symbolism. The Conversation. [Internet] 2020 February 18. [Cited 2021–06–22]. Available: https://theconversation.com/constitutional-recognition-for-indigenous-australians-must-involve-structural-change-not-mere-symbolism-131751.

  97. Referendum Council. Uluru Statement from the Heart, included in the final report from the referendum council 2017. Available: https://www.referendumcouncil.org.au/sites/default/files/report_attachments/Referendum_Council_Final_Report.pdf.

  98. Turnbull M, Brandis G, Scullion N. Joint media release: response to referendum council’s report on constitutional recognition. [Internet] 2017. [Cited 2021–06–21]. Available: https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/download/media/pressrel/5596294/upload_binary/5596294.pdf;fileType=application%2Fpdf#search=%22media/pressrel/5596294%22.

  99. O’Sullivan D. Indigenous recognition is more than a Voice to Government—it’s a matter of political equality: the Conversation [Online]; 2021. Available: https://theconversation.com/indigenous-recognition-is-more-than-a-voice-to-government-its-a-matter-of-political-equality-154057.

  100. Brady M. Book 6: struggles over drinking rights. In: MacKenzie M, editor. First taste: how indigenous australians learned about grog. Deakin: Alcohol Education and Rehabilitation Foundation; 2008.

  101. Northern Territory National Emergency Response Act 2007 (Cth) [cited 2019–05–01]. Available: https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/C2011C00053.

  102. Lander F, Gray D, Wilkes E. The Alcohol Mandatory Treatment Act: evidence, ethics and the law. Med J Aust. 2015;203(1):47–9. https://doi.org/10.5694/mja15.00173.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  103. Australia. Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody. Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody: Regional Report of Inquiry into Underlying Issues in Western Australia. Canberra: AGPS; 1991.

  104. Mazel O. Self-determination and the right to health: Australian Aboriginal community controlled health services. Human Rights Law Rev. 2016;16(2):323–55. https://doi.org/10.1093/hrlr/ngw010.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  105. Panaretto KS, Wenitong M, Button S, Ring IT. Aboriginal community controlled health services: leading the way in primary care. Med J Aust. 2014;200(11):649–52. https://doi.org/10.5694/mja13.00005.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  106. Williams PL, Webb C. The Delphi technique: a methodological discussion. J Adv Nurs. 1994;19(1):180–6. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2648.1994.tb01066.x.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  107. Lange T, Kopkow C, Lutzner J, Gunther KP, Gravius S, Scharf HP, et al. Comparison of different rating scales for the use in Delphi studies: different scales lead to different consensus and show different test-retest reliability. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2020;20(1):28. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-020-0912-8.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  108. Wall EJ, Milewski MD, Carey JL, Shea KG, Ganley TJ, Polousky JD, et al. The reliability of assessing radiographic healing of osteochondritis dissecans of the knee. Am J Sports Med. 2017;45(6):1370–5. https://doi.org/10.1177/0363546517698933.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Thanks to the Centre of Research Excellence: Indigenous Health and Alcohol project staff,  Higher Degree by Research colleagues, and others for their collegiate support through the study. A special thank you to the expert panellists; while they cannot be named, without their time and knowledge this work would not be possible. We cannot adequately express our appreciation, particularly after a significantly challenging year. We would also like to acknowledge various communities and traditional lands from which we drew the participants in our study; their strength and resilience has been an inspiration.

Funding

This work was supported by the National Health and Medical Research Council, Centre of Research Excellence: Indigenous Health and Alcohol (ID#:1117198). The National Drug Research Institute at Curtin University and the National Drug and Alcohol Research Centre at the University of New South Wales are supported by funding from the Australian Government under the Drug and Alcohol Program. The funders have no involvement in the design, data collection or analysis; writing of the report, or decision to submit for publication.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Health Sciences, National Drug Research Institute, Curtin University, Perth, Western Australia, Australia

    Annalee E. Stearne, K. S. Kylie Lee & Steve Allsop

  2. Faculty of Health Sciences, enAble Institute, Curtin University, Perth, Western Australia, Australia

    Annalee E. Stearne, K. S. Kylie Lee & Steve Allsop

  3. Faculty of Medicine and Health, Central Clinical School, NHMRC Centre of Research Excellence in Indigenous Health and Alcohol, The University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia

    K. S. Kylie Lee

  4. The Edith Collins Centre (Translational Research in Alcohol Drugs and Toxicology), Sydney Local Health District, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia

    K. S. Kylie Lee

  5. Burnet Institute, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia

    K. S. Kylie Lee

  6. Centre for Alcohol Policy Research, La Trobe University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia

    K. S. Kylie Lee

  7. National Drug and Alcohol Research Centre, University of New South Wales, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia

    Anthony Shakeshaft

  8. Faculty of Health Sciences, Curtin School of Allied Health, Curtin University, Perth, Western Australia, Australia

    Michael Wright

Authors
  1. Annalee E. Stearne
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. K. S. Kylie Lee
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Steve Allsop
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Anthony Shakeshaft
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Michael Wright
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

AES designed, developed and analysed the Delphi surveys, with guidance and feedback from KL, MW and SA. AES analysed the data. AES prepared the manuscript with support from KL. MW and SA supervised the project and provided critical feedback in each stage of the study. KL, MW and SA tested versions of the survey, and provided critical feedback on the study development and manuscript during development. AS provided critical feedback on the development of the wider study and manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Authors’ information

This review is part of a wider PhD study (AES) exploring how self-determination by First Nations Australians can be recognized and included in the development of alcohol policy. Two of the authors, including AES, are First Nations Australians, providing a First Nations Australian perspective and world view to this study.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Annalee E. Stearne.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Ethical approval was provided by the Curtin University Human Research Ethics Committee (HRE2019‐0729) and the Central Australian Human Research Ethics Committee (CA‐19‐3525). Participation was opt-in and voluntary. Informed consent was sought electronically prior to the commencement of each survey.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Additional file 1: Table S1.

Percentage of each ranking for Q1–Q6a (rounds 2 and 3). Provides the detailed survey results for rounds 2 and 3, for Q1 to Q6 (exc. Q5).

Additional file 2: Figure S1.

Ranking of macro-level elements to facilitate First Nations Australians' self-determination (Q1). Presents the rankings by proportion for all responses in Q1 for rounds 2 and 3.

Additional file 3: Figure S2.

Ranking of values that should facilitate First Nations Australians' self-determination (Q2). Presents the rankings by proportion for all responses in Q2 for rounds 2 and 3.

Additional file 4: Figure S3.

Ranking of the policy processes needed to ensure self-determination is evident (Q3). Presents the rankings by proportion for all responses in Q3 for rounds 2 and 3.

Additional file 5: Figure S4.

Decision-making processes needed policy development for self-determination (Q4). Presents the rankings by proportion for all responses in Q4 for rounds 2 and 3.

Additional file 6: Figure S5.

Factors necessary for self-determination in the implementation (Q6). Presents the rankings by proportion for all responses in Q6 for rounds 2 and 3.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

E. Stearne, A., Lee, K.S.K., Allsop, S. et al. First Nations Australians’ self-determination in health and alcohol policy development: a Delphi study. Health Res Policy Sys 20, 12 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12961-022-00813-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12961-022-00813-6

Keywords

Health Research Policy and Systems

ISSN: 1478-4505

Contact us