Representing Indigenous Australians' interests

Today, Wednesday, February 13, 2008, is the day when Kevin Rudd will deservedly be entered into the record books as an audacious leader who dared to go where no other has gone by following his convictions and publicly saying “sorry” in Federal Parliament to members of the Stolen Generation.

I say he is audacious because it was indeed a bold move to commence with the announcement of “sorry” as the opening business item on the first sitting day of his newly elected administration.

The down side to Kevin Rudd’s audaciousness is the potential public backlash to his action, which I’m sure he is patently aware of, from conservative voters on both sides of politics, which could render his occupancy of the lodge a tenuous one indeed.

Personally I think Rudd has nothing to worry about as I suspect the voting public would much rather see a decisive leader at the helm making a call on the hard decisions, irrespective of how popular they may or may not be, than a leader such as Brendan Nelson who has a history of changing parties and views on issues.

If anything I believe Rudd’s stance on this issue will consolidate his position as the most preferred prime minister for at least two terms.

No one wants to be remembered as a one-term PM, so for that fact alone I take my hat off to Kevin Rudd for tackling the most controversial issue, up front, before moving on to other pressing issues.

The fact that he will not be announcing a compensation package to go with the “sorry” statement concerns me - but on this auspicious occasion I would much rather acknowledge this initial step as an incremental advance on an announcement of financial support for the Stolen Generation some time down the track.

One can only hope that through further meetings with those who were impacted by this unfortunate period in Australia’s dark past that the PM and his Indigenous Affairs Minister, Jenny Macklin, will find it in their hearts to compensate them for their loss and suffering.

So as the momentous celebrations in Canberra, and throughout the nation, subside I expect discussion will inevitably move on to an equally important issue of a nationally elected Indigenous representative body.

I’ve been encouraged by comments credited to various leaders, in a range of national media outlets, of their proposals on the composition of such a body - from utilising existing native title claimants, especially elders, to perform the function of our representatives - to streamlining the old ATSIC model and making use of expert Indigenous advisors.

By using native title claimants, especially elders, to take charge of all Indigenous specific issues nationally I believe it would afford Indigenous elders the respect they deserve.

In principle it’s the way it was historically and still should be. But, sadly, along with the many benefits of modernity comes the breakdown of traditional values which impacts on the way today’s younger generation, in particular, perceive the role of their elders.

However I’m mindful that the majority of traditional owner groups around the country are not headed by elders. In fact I’m aware that in certain areas elders have been deliberately excluded from native title deliberations as their views conflict with the agenda of others.

I’m aware that native title fights, verbal and physical, have occurred within families of some traditional owner groups that have split families forever. Families who stuck by each other through the good and bad times for generations are now no longer on talking terms because of conflict that has emanated from native title disputes.

So I wouldn’t venture down the path of locking in the elder’s model to best represent the interests of Indigenous Australians.

The whole regional council and zone commissioner model of the old ATSIC became far too cumbersome to administer. The sheer cost involved in bringing people together for meetings was, in most cases, an exercise in futility because decisions were often biased towards the dominant members of the council.

ATSIC, by its own doing, had reached a critical point of no return in 2004 and was in a fight with the government that it was never going to win. ATSIC representatives attempted to counter punch their way out of an exhausting tussle with the government but sadly the writing was on the wall.

Things became terminal for ATSIC the moment the leader of the opposition, Mark Latham, lent bipartisan support to the government to abolish it.

What replaces the old defunct model is anyone’s guess. But a more modest-sized elected Indigenous representation with selected Indigenous experts to add weight to the body has, I believe, far more merit.

My proposed elected representative body would be comprised of 35 people. These people would be elected from the old ATSIC regional council areas. Each state would elect one person from their group to represent them at the national level.

The make up of national representation would comprise one delegate from the Torres Strait Islands, Queensland, New South Wales, ACT, Victoria, Tasmania, South Australia, Western Australia and the Northern Territory - giving a total of nine members.

I don’t believe there is any need to have a regional council of 12 members for each of the 35 regional council areas as I’m confident that one person in close consultation with their existing Indigenous Co-ordinating Council staff could perform the same function without all the politics that impaired progress in the past.

Each elected member would be adequately resourced with staff and other essential services to carry out their function.

With the removal of long standing regional councils, where representatives were automatically elected due to family size alone, new players should emerge confident in the knowledge that they will not have to navigate the minefields of Indigenous politics that was around previously.

On a national level the executive council office would need to be adequately resourced with expert advisors in the areas of research, public relations and administration.

In summary, the proposal would be for the Australian Electoral Commission (AEC) to conduct national elections for 35 full time members to service their constituents as per the old ATSIC Regional Council boundaries. AEC officers would later be charged with conducting state and national elections from the successful applicants.

Most Indigenous people are familiar with the potential leadership group currently operating in their regions and have an idea of whom they think would best be able to offer a new vision for empowering their people to achieve their goals.

The most critical difference between this Indigenous model and the National Indigenous Council (which superceded ATSIC) is that it is elected by the people, for the people.

It is only when we are able to elect our own representatives that we can claim to have a genuine national voice of the people and not a voice that echoes the wishes of a government who appointed them for their expert opinion.

While Australia, or more particularly the Labor Government, prolongs the announcement on their preferred model, Indigenous Australians will continue to be the poorer for not having a voice at the national level.