Asia-Pacific, Development & Aid, Headlines, Human Rights, Indigenous Rights

RIGHTS-AUSTRALIA: Concerns Over New Indigenous People’s Body

Stephen de Tarczynski

MELBOURNE, Mar 16 2008 (IPS) - Indigenous Australians have largely welcomed the government’s scrapping of the controversial National Indigenous Council (NIC) to make way for a new representative body.

“I thought they (the NIC) were an absolute waste of time,” says prominent aboriginal activist Michael Mansell, Legal Director of the Tasmanian Aboriginal Centre.

Explaining his unequivocal view of NIC members, Mansell says “they were devoid of ideas. The body itself and the opinions it projected lacked any character on representation capacity’’.

The Minister for Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs, Jenny Macklin, announced on Jan.15 that the NIC – whose mandate expired on Dec.31, 2007 – would not be continued.

“I believe the interests of indigenous people would be better served through a different approach,” said Macklin, adding that the government will consult with indigenous people regarding “the best process” in which to implement the new representative body.

The 14-member NIC was established by the Howard government in November 2004 to advise the government on indigenous issues. But from its inception, the NIC – as a body consisting entirely of government-appointed councillors – came under fire for its perceived role as a government lackey.

The Howard government was “hand-picking aboriginal people who the government knew would provide the government with views it wanted to hear,” argues Mansell.

“And in the main they illustrated that it is true that he who pays the piper calls the tune,” he told IPS.

In its September 2007 report to the Howard government, the NIC acknowledged that it was “largely disowned by aboriginal people and organisations” when it was first convened. However, the report also stated that the NIC had “gained increased credibility and legitimacy over the last three years’’.

“It was our brief to provide advice to senior ministers and secretaries and I’m comfortable that we did that quite well,” says former NIC member, Wesley Aird, who was disappointed at the council’s scrapping.

“The people that were on the NIC were there because they had experience or expertise or particular points of view,” Aird told IPS.

Another factor in its lack of popularity among indigenous Australians was the view that the government-appointed NIC was a direct replacement for the democratically-elected Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission (ATSIC), a perception not shared Aird.

“The NIC was never a replacement for ATSIC. We didn’t have representation from every state, for instance,” he says.

Established in 1990, ATSIC was effectively disbanded by the Howard government in 2004. The demise of ATSIC was made somewhat easier by the controversy surrounding then chairperson, Geoff Clark. Both major parties had also judged the commission to have been unsuccessful.

The Howard government also promoted the view that the NIC was not the replacement for ATSIC. The office of Amanda Vanstone, the indigenous affairs minister at the time of the NIC’s introduction, released a statement in November 2004 which read: “The Minister stressed the NIC is not a replacement for ATSIC and not intended to be a representative body.”

However, a document from the federal cabinet on the abolition of ATSIC – dated April 7, 2004 – which was leaked to the National Indigenous Times newspaper indicates otherwise. According to the paper, the document refers to the NIC as the body to “replace” ATSIC in three separate instances.

While it is clear that the NIC’s existence was a controversial one, it is apparent that the new body will generate its own contention.

With some two months having passed since the official scrapping of the NIC, there is a feeling among indigenous activists – including Mansell and other indigenous Australians – that the government is taking too long to initiate the setting up of the next representative body.

Mansell wants the government to “provide the resources and any necessary legislative changes to enable Aboriginal people to set up our own national, political voice.”

“The government should have nothing else to do with it other than that so that it is a completely independent black voice,” he told IPS.

Mansell says that indigenous representatives must come from Aboriginal communities. He argues that whether these representatives are elected or appointed is a matter for Aboriginal communities to decide.

While Mansell says that in most cases, communities may want to use the popular vote to determine their representatives, he foresees that some communities – particularly those in remote areas – may not necessarily regard elections as the best way to choose the most appropriate representatives.

“There may well be traditional structures in place that warrant someone who may not be elected by the popular vote [but] who really is able to speak, not just for the political interests of the aboriginal community that they come from, but also would take into account the whole context of culture, law, religion and the aspirations of those people,” says the activist.

Aird, however, is concerned that a focus on the structure of a national indigenous representative body takes away from what he regards as a more pressing concern. “The real issue is how to overcome disadvantage,” he says.

With key health indicators such as life expectancy and infant mortality rates showing large discrepancies between indigenous and non-indigenous Australians, Aird’s view “is that ideology should not come before solving some real, practical, quality of life issues.”

While the former councillor is “yet to see the link between and elected body per se and how to improve people’s lives”, he is concerned that the debate surrounding elected versus appointed representatives “is really putting the ideological cart before the horse.”

“I would have thought that having a body that can talk to government, that has got expertise (and) technical experience is what’s important. That’s what indigenous people need at this time,” Aird told IPS.

But while there is little doubt that these issues are indeed important, indigenous Australians like Michael Mansell regard the decisions surrounding the structure of the next representative body as vital.

“My view is very clear,” says Mansell. “It’s that it has got to be at the behest of aboriginal people and nobody else.”