After the defeat of the Voice, we saw Anthony Albanese reframe his government's Indigenous affairs commitment at Garma, turning from the rights-based approach long endorsed by Aboriginal people, towards one specifically supporting economic empowerment.

This commitment was seen in reforms to the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Act 2005 (ATSI Act) giving Indigenous Business Australia (IBA) the ability to borrow and raise funds to pursue investment opportunities to support Aboriginal economic empowerment.

The Albanese government also announced it would strengthen its Indigenous Procurement Policy (IPP). Businesses need to be 51 per cent or more First Nations-owned and controlled to benefit from Commonwealth contracts. It also increased its target from 2.5 to 3 per cent of contracts from 1 July 2025, increasing to 4 per cent by 2030.

According to Minister Malarndirri McCarthy Indigenous businesses have achieved a milestone $10 billion in Commonwealth contracts over nearly a decade.

The federal commitments are mirrored in Western Australian by the Aboriginal Procurement Policy, mandating progressive targets for the award of contracts to Aboriginal businesses and, as of 2023, to Aboriginal Community Controlled Organisations (ACCOs).

Today in WA state agencies must award four per cent of their contracts to Aboriginal businesses and ACCOs.

Unsurprisingly, these policies have led to cases of fraud and 'Black cladding' - non-Aboriginal people and businesses pretending to be Aboriginal to take advantage of the IPP.

So, what constitutes an Aboriginal business? Under the IPP, business now need to be 51 per cent Aboriginal owned. According to Supply Nation they can do this in one of two ways, firstly by receiving a Confirmation of Aboriginality from a recognised Aboriginal institution or secondly receiving verification from two Aboriginal people as referees recognising the Aboriginal business owner. This second process especially can lend itself to identity fraud, an increasingly recognised global problem.

There's been a rise in the Indigenous population that can't be explained by birth rates alone. It is in part a result of 'box ticking' non-Aboriginal people claiming to be Aboriginal and motivated to pursue opportunity and at the expense of Aboriginal people.

It is important to consider who is an Aboriginal person under the law. Both the High Court in Mabo (2) (1992) and the Federal Court in Helmright (2021) have determined that Aboriginality is not simply a matter of biological descent or self-recognition. Recognition from the Aboriginal community, and from senior people in the community, is required. This aligns with the three-part definition long adopted by governments with Aboriginal people.

We're also seeing this issue in Canada as Assembly of First Nations Chief Joanne Bernard recently told a parliament inquiry in Ottawa: "There is currently no consistent way of verifying the legitimacy of Indigenous businesses, which creates a risk of false claims, tokenism … exploitation of bad actors."

These concerns have been backed by research by First Nations University of Canada which found significant loopholes in their similar procurement policies.

At the same time as announcing its economic commitments, the federal government tabled the annual Close the Gap on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander disadvantage report. Once again, we see Aboriginal child removals, incarceration levels and suicide are increasing across the country. Our people are suffering.

Employment, business and wealth creation under the economic empowerment model, while contributing to an Aboriginal middle class, are not automatically linked to social investment into Aboriginal communities.

If we're serious about Closing the Gap, businesses receiving this significant government support should show how they will benefit the wider Aboriginal community.

The Australian government's approach can be contrasted with Aboriginal economic frameworks in Canada, the United States and Aotearoa/New Zealand that have led to collective wealth for Indigenous tribal councils and Iwis. These agreements have often come from first contact treaties, modern day Treaties underpinned by constitutional recognition and strong protections of Aboriginal title to land. Unfortunately, in Australia, we are missing all these essential features.

25 years of an economic agenda first championed by Howard to Abbott, Turnbull, Morrison and now Albanese has failed to close the gap.

Further, the issue of Indigenous identity fraud has been ignored for too long, and extends to universities, government and non-government sector.

While the federal government promises to tackle 'Black cladding and make it easier to report' more proactive measures are needed, including revision of the Supply Nation process. Currently there are no effective regulatory response to Aboriginal identity fraud happening every day.

As the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples provides, Indigenous peoples have the right to determine our collective identity. The abuse of Aboriginal identity is dangerous and undermines our cultures that have endured 60,000 years in this country. It also places at risk our right to self- determination in what has also been described as the 'ultimate act of colonisation'.