Our mob's future isn't in our hands

I’ve read countless reports on Indigenous Australians throughout my life and not once have I examined a paper that offers so much to our adversaries and so little to our people. Right wing social commentators would be charging their glasses, and ultra conservatives in the Coalition Party marvelling at the blue print “gift” on Indigenous affairs handed to them on a silver platter.

Even more astounding still for antagonists of Indigenous Australians is the fact they did not contribute a single word of the almost unintelligible report that is littered with complex tiered structures requiring a degree in strategic management to decipher.

Tom Calma’s Our Future In Our Hands report released to the world via his National Press Club address in Canberra on August 27 can best be summed up in one word: inept.

The first thing that came to my mind after reading the finer details of the report is that its intent is eerily reminiscent of the old Aboriginal protectors and mission manager’s instruction manual on how to control their incarcerated hordes.

The protectionist era of the early 1900s sought to save the first Australians from the savagery of abuse by marauding white settlers operating beyond the frontier. In that era, our mob was deemed to be incapable of making informed decisions about their lives and needed an assertive mission manager to fill that nurturing void.

The mission manager’s instruction manual rules were generic and proved a highly effective operational tool to keep the blacks in order:

1. the white man is always right;
2. don’t let the blacks have the right to vote or make decisions that affect themselves;
3. develop a dossier on all blacks to sort out the good from the problematic ones;
4. when rule 3 is completed proportion jobs to peak leaders accordingly;
5. use language so complex that they will never fully understand what is being asked; and
6. if all else fails - revert back to rule 1 and send for the native police.

I can’t understand why, in Calma’s report, there is so much emphasis placed on probity checks for his proposed structure for Indigenous representation when there are clear government rules pertaining to applicants wishing to stand for public office. If someone has been charged with a serious criminal offence they are automatically deemed ineligible to stand for election. If that tenet is good enough for mainstream political candidates why isn’t it good enough for black candidates?

Why set up a structure that favours control being placed in the hands of lead Indigenous organisations when evidently, despite their best efforts, they have not been able to have any impact on giving native title to our people, to keeping our people out of jail, to lowering the incidents of children being removed from their families, or to addressing our chronic health, housing, education and employment problems?

And why limit Indigenous women to 50 per cent of the proposed structure’s membership when clearly they are the majority of the incumbent leaders throughout the nation running our organisations as well as holding public office in state and territory politics.

Incidentally, Lowetja O’Donaghue was the chairperson of the first ever federally endorsed elected representative body, the National Aboriginal Consultative Committee (NACC), established by Gough Whitlam in 1973. My father Jim was Lowetja’s deputy and later went on to become chairman of the NACC successor, the National Aboriginal Conference (NAC), brought in by Malcolm Fraser when he gained office in 1975 after he controversially ousted Gough Whitlam.

How many of Tom Calma’s committee who rubber-stamped this blue print have ever stood for public office in an NACC, NAC or ATSIC election? Could it be that some of these members have designed an alternative, non-elected, body that will keep them in the game without the need to ever experience the ignominy of campaigning and missing out on a seat in an Australian Electoral Commission sanctioned election?

I’ve stood for ATSIC twice and enjoyed the highs and lows or winning and failing and yet I still support the democratic process. My father stood successfully for office twice, and stood a third time unsuccessfully and he also endorses the elected model.

Democracy, a 4th century BC Greek term meaning “popular government”, is what epitomises the good in western society as opposed to the bad in a dictatorial regime, but yet it is the very word that Tom Calma’s esteemed committee has sought to white-out in this report.

Perhaps it is the Indigenous people who have been white-outed by their own mob.

I attended the Brisbane community consultation process for this new structure, as well as being fortunate to be selected - along with 100 other Indigenous leaders from around the country - to meet for three days in Adelaide with Tom Calma and his committee, and I don’t recall, in any group discussions, hearing about the concepts arrived at in the final report.

I hope Indigenous Affairs Minister Jenny Macklin will intervene on behalf of Indigenous Australians and insist on a re-write of the Our Future In Our Hands report.

Perhaps I was being naïve to think my views, like the many others’ which were also tabled, would be taken seriously in the final analysis.

Minister Macklin sits in her privileged position today because of an adherence to the democratic process and surely she would view a communal structure devoid of the rigour covered in that process, a failed one in need of urgent repair.

Minister Macklin, as part of the Australian government, endorsed the potential sacrifice of our fit and healthy young army personnel to fight wars we didn’t start to ensure the democratic process is not only done but also seen to be done. Incongruously, if she endorses Calma’s report, she effectively says to all Indigenous Australians that we can’t be trusted to make decisions through the democratic process.

And further that we can’t be trusted with money or influence.

What would all the good, white, handsomely remunerated public servants do if those demanding blacks regained control over the purse strings and the decision making processes concerning their people?

To put this divisive debate into perspective I draw attention to the fact that there was no public outcry in Australia regarding the 500 Australian army personnel placed in danger to guarantee the safety of 15 million registered Afghanistan voters at the polls recently. When the polls closed Prime Minister Rudd congratulated his men and women in uniform: “Well done on what you have done in what is a very violent environment, to make it possible for as many people in Afghanistan to get out there and vote as possible."

Although less than 50 per cent of voters bothered to vote - far lower than the 70 per cent who voted in the presidential elections in 2004, the Afghanistan election outcome nevertheless was seen as a success for democracy.

The Australian government risked the lives of our brave soldiers despite knowing that the incumbent President, Hamid Karzai, had formed alliances with known warlords who, it is alleged, have committed horrific crimes against their own people; and despite the fact the Afghanistan population have become disillusioned with him after years of oppression against women, corruption, slow-moving economy, extreme poverty and escalating violence.

Oppression against women, corruption, slow-moving economy, extreme poverty and escalating violence - sounds familiar.

Yep - and the Northern Territory Intervention will remedy that problem back home!

But still the Australian government fully supported the right for Afghanistan people to vote for those they thought would best represent their future aspirations.

So why would the government and selected Indigenous leaders endorse a concept that doesn’t allow Indigenous Australians the right to cast a vote for the leaders they believe could best represent our future aspirations? And why insist on equal representation of women as a prerequisite for endorsement of this new model.

Do they really believe Indigenous women are incapable of acting responsibly and independently when voting in a secret ballot?

I believe our women have the right to be whatever percentage of a new representative body - as voted for by their people - be that 50, 60 or 70 per cent. Why limit them to just 50 per cent? Why is it necessary to have such draconian conditions for Indigenous Australians?

I would however support an elected Indigenous model based on the following:

• committees comprising three esteemed Indigenous leaders from each State and Territory, including the Torres Strait Island (nine in total), to produce a shortlist of 10 nominated delegates to stand for election from an open tender process;
• the Australian Electoral Commission to conduct elections for Indigenous people to choose their representative in each State, Territory and the TSI from the pool of 10 endorsed candidates;
• the nine elected representatives to become full time members and they alone vote on their executive;
• the new body would be elected every three years, to perform an advisory role to government only;
• the government would provide recurrent funding, including the establishment costs for a secretariat, as well as wages and on-going costs for delegate’s support staff.

Meanwhile, Calma’s proposed unelected model is fraught with danger and simply won’t work in its current form.