The Howard government's review did not recommend abolishing ATSIC

At the risk of further embarrassment to backbencher Scullion I won't go on.

He was clearly there to talk, not listen.

If the federal government can spend $1 million of taxpayer's money to conduct a review of an organisation, publicly lie about what it found, and then leave it to the media to inform members of the review panel about its official response, what are the prospects for influence of Howard's hand-picked group "of distinguished Indigenous people to advise the government on a purely advisory basis in relation to Aboriginal affairs"?

One suspects it will be absolutely none.

This all raises one key question in my mind.

Are there any "distinguished Indigenous people" out there who are clever enough to do the job and yet dumb enough to take it?

Put Howard's claim that this has resulted from an examination of the review report and also "a very extensive examination of Indigenous affairs policy," against what Jackie Huggins had to say on national television.

There has been no extensive examination of Indigenous affairs policy. This is what the review report called for.

You'll find it clearly articulated in its report.

It says: "Any changes to ATSIC's program delivery role should be considered as part of a Commonwealth/State/Territory examination of the most effective delivery of all services and programs of significance to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians."

I humbly suggest Scullion go back and read the review report before the parliamentary debate on Howard's ATSIC legislation.

The principal recommendation of the review report was not to abolish ATSIC. It was to retain it.