Amanda Vanstone: The raider of the ‘lost’ art

It’s official - Amanda Vanstone stole Geoff Clark’s art. And the Australian media got it all wrong. And ... well, you get the picture. It’s just another day in Aboriginal Affairs .

Meanwhile the web delivered the news. The Dean of Gonzo journalism was dead. God rest the tortured soul of Hunter S. Thompson.

You have probably come across those little newspaper fillers where people are asked which three people they’d most like to invite to dinner. I’ve always answered Hunter, Hunter and Hunter. He inspired political journalists around the world and anyone vaguely familiar with his works will know why. Tom Wolfe once tipped his hat to Hunter in this way: “There are only two adjectives that writers care about anymore, ‘brilliant’ and ‘outrageous’ ... Hunter Thompson has a freehold on both of them.” Amen.

Sadly I never met the man. Perhaps we’ll hook up in the hereafter. I’d like to think so. You always have to have something to look forward to. If you have not already done so, do yourself a favour, and read Better than Sex, Confessions of a Political Junkie. It’s soaked in the brilliance and outrage which marked all of his works. No-one can afford to ignore any writer who can describe a politician as having the “loyalty of a lizard with its tail broken off ...” The book starts by citing Amendment IV to the US Constitution:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the person or things to be seized.

There is no home-grown Hunter, more’s the pity.

I wonder what he would have made of this, when read alongside Amendment IV. There’s certainly a touch of the gonzo about Aboriginal Affairs of late. On January 23 this year ATSIC Chairman Geoff Clark stupidly made (or took) a phone call from Tony Koch of The Australian newspaper. Koch had clearly been given the tip from inside Government that the ATSIC Board was seeking to obtain legal advice on the disposal of its assets, ahead of its abolition.

An article subsequently appeared in The Australian the following day. It was headed, “ATSIC’s abolition sell off”. The first paragraph stated, “ATSIC Commissioners plan to sell some of the agency’s $8 million in property and assets, including a $3 million collection of Indigenous art to fund a legal battle with the Howard Government”.

Four paragraphs of the 12 par story were given over to Clark. Three contained direct quotes. All related to Clark criticising the Government for refusing to fund his travel to appear before the Senate Select Committee on the Administration of Aboriginal Affairs. The fourth and second last par in the story was an indirect quote. It said, “Mr Clark said legal advice was being sought on whether the assets could be sold”.

The final paragraph quoted a spokesman for Amanda Vanstone which said the Minister was “concerned that assets could be raided”. Nothing in the story supported the bald statement in the lead paragraph of a “plan” by ATSIC Commissioners to sell anything.

No other member of the ATSIC Board was quoted confirming or denying “the plan”. Clark does not speak for the Board, and Koch should know that. But his word was good enough for The Australian, the very newspaper which consistently portrays him in its editorials columns as a thoroughly discredited leader.

Go figure.

Vanstone also knows better.

She and her comrades have spent a fortune in taxpayers’ money making sure Clark is without power or influence. But she knew she was on a winner. As Clark refused to be drawn by other media on the story, The Australian was busily racing around confecting outrage at “the plan”. Follow-ups included: “Fury at plan to sell historic Indigenous art” and “Vanstone’s $9 million freeze on ATSIC”. The latter stemmed from a press release issued by Vanstone on January 28, headed: "Protecting ATSIC’s assets".

The nine paragraph statement said Vanstone “had moved today to protect assets owned by the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission”. She said, “I have reason to believe that the ATSIC Board may be considering selling off assets inappropriately in the period leading up to the formal abolition of the Commission”. She added, “I will not stand by and allow assets meant for the benefit of all Indigenous Australians to be put at risk”.

The statement said the Minister had issued a general direction which required the ATSIC Board to give 30 days notice of any intention to dispose of assets. “This would give the Government time to oppose any improper sale of assets,” Senator Vanstone said.

Not a shred of evidence was presented to support her belief the Board was considering an inappropriate or improper sell off. Are we to assume no explanation is required when you are dealing with Aboriginal people? The mainstream media certainly fell for it.

Cut to the February 4 hearing of the Senate Select Committee on the Administration of Indigenous Affairs in Canberra.

Clark travelled to the hearing and was the first witness. Appearing alongside him was fellow Board member Cliff Foley. Their evidence occupies 24 pages of Hansard. Clark began by tabling a series of letters which flowed between himself and a senior ATSIS official in mid-January. The letters clearly showed Clark had been seeking independent legal advice on the divestment of ATSIC assets.

The official was refusing to allow government funds to pay for the legal advice, claiming he had a conflict of interest. Clark questioned the legality of a transition agreement between ATSIC and ATSIS.

During the hearing he stated, “I wanted to know legal opinions about whether it (the transition agreement) is void or whether it has any currency. I may want to look at the housing programs within ATSIC. It is very successful. Where can we park that? Can we put that into a Trust situation?

“How do we divest properties back to Aboriginal communities so that it is safe and secure? How do we secure the artwork of Aboriginals that has been accumulated for 30 years? How do we secure that property on behalf of Aboriginal people? How do we legally put that in process? All these technical questions require legal advice. The [official] has admitted a conflict of interest.

“They (ATSIS) cannot give me the independent advice I choose to get. On some occasions they have agreed to pay for some of this advice. But when I asked, in this current letter, for advice in relation to assets there was a leaked media report suggesting that we are going to sell off the artworks to pay for a legal challenge.

“That is totally outrageous, totally incorrect ... and I reckon, vicious. It was a vicious leak, obviously from the department of ATSIS.”

All of this was said within spitting distance of the Canberra Press Gallery. None of it appeared in the mainstream press.

One could have expected the nonsense to end there. Sadly, it didn’t.

The ATSIC Board duly met and did decide to divest its assets, based on legal advice. Not the $7 to $9 million incorrectly cited by Vanstone in her January 28 press release. The ATSIC Board resolved to seek the divestment of $57 million in real property and other assets, including the artwork, to peak Aboriginal organisations around the country.

This was reported around the country as an act of defiance against the Government. The Canberra Times, in one of the most rancid editorials ever printed under its masthead, even described it as an act of sabotage.

Television cameras and press photographers just happened to be on hand after ATSIS decided to assume looting rights and confiscate all the artwork from its Canberra Headquarters and ATSIC offices around the country. The agency and government spin doctors got to work. It was being rescued, we were told, for all Australians.

The Canberra Times then featured its most colourful front page for years. It was festooned with six colour photos of some of the artwork, under the headline: “The art Vanstone wants to keep for all”. It did not seem to occur to the newspaper that the last time it was seen in public was when it was being wheeled out for the “rescued for all Australians” media stunt and placed in a secret location.

It also did not seem to occur to the newspaper that the ATSIC Board is the legal owner of the works. The art has never been available to “all Australians” in the offices of the white bureaucrats who inhabit the security-controlled Lovett Tower in Canberra. If I was a Commissioner, I’d be thinking about probable cause.

Inexplicably, this fantasy knocked off other potential front page stories such as Howard dissembling over committing more troops to Iraq, the toxic aftermath of the tsunami, news that Australians were deeper in debt under the Howard Government and the public plea to Vanstone by 104-year-old Cui Yu Hu not to deport her from Australia.

Surely the headline should have read: “Raiders of the ‘Lost’ Art”. I quickly sought refuge in the World News section which was carrying a story on the death of the good Dr Hunter.

Troy Hooper, associate editor of the Aspen Daily News and a friend of the family, said Hunter had told his son his afterlife ambition was to become cannon fodder... literally. His will stated that he wanted his ashes to be fired from a cannon after his funeral. “That’s Hunter’s style. That’s how he would want it,” he said. “He was a big fan of bonfires and explosions and anything that went bang, and I’m sure he’d like to go bang as well.” Typical. Larger than life, even in death.

In its published appreciation The New York Times said Thompson made politics seem like a low-stakes minstrel show. He’d have found no shortage of material in the ATSIC saga.