Recognition and closing the gap are lost in the Voice debate

Why are these arms being seen as incapable and if so, why should they not be abolished first?

The now abolished body, like the proposed Voice, created for and run by Indigenous people, was the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission (ATSIC). It was created in 1990 and abolished in 2005.

I believe most of you reading this piece would be familiar with ATSIC and the reasons for its demise.

Despite having a budget of more than one billion dollars a year, it failed to deliver and improve conditions for indigenous Australians.

And because it was not enshrined in the constitution, the Howard government could put an end to this waste of resource and abolished it.

But once established, if the Voice also fails to deliver, there seems to be no mechanism to call out the waste and put a stop to it.

Clearly the problem is an abundance of advice, not the lack of it, with a myriad of advisers on Indigenous affairs.

Thus, looking at the brief for the Voice, one could be tempted to ask - are there too many specialised eager advisors, finding no outlet, looking to create a new one, by duplicating the requirement for it?

We all believe not enough has been done to close the gap and all we need to look at are two pertinent areas –

1. existing Indigenous programs incorporating current advice; and

2. the personnel / advisors.

To find answers, we need to look at the functions of the NIAA - the Indigenous affairs department – which, in many ways, I believe, is the current 'Voice.'