Amanda Vanstone: The raider of the ‘lost’ art

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.”