Vanstone's 'No Idea' Committee

The doctor’s 26-page submission to the Select Committee provides a sober assessment of why a duly-elected national Indigenous commission should not be replaced with a hand-picked advisory body, the proposed National Indigenous Council (NIC).

I should mention at this point that the NIC, the membership of which is the subject of an imminent public announcement from Vanstone, is now referred to as the “No Idea” Committee in the circles in which I travel.

Let’s not forget that when he lodged that submission Doctor Jonas was the Howard Government’s most senior appointed Indigenous advisor. He said the ATSIC Bill 2004 would operate to disempower Indigenous peoples and the mainstreaming of Indigenous services and programmes is “not accompanied by adequate mechanisms for scrutiny of the government’s performance on Indigenous issues”. He said the abolition of the nationally elected representative Indigenous body “ensures that the Government will only have to deal with Indigenous peoples on its own terms and without any reference to the stated aspirations and goals of Indigenous peoples”. He then skillfully prosecuted the case for ATSIC’s reform, rather than abolition.

Dr Jonas expressed concern that, “Abolishing ATSIC will simply silence Indigenous people at the national level while the deeply entrenched crisis in Indigenous communities continues unabated”. This has already occurred due, in part, to the Government’s starving of resources to the ATSIC Board and the treacherous antics of a bunch of compliant public servants.

Dr Jonas also made the point that the Government had never substantiated the justifications used for seeking to abolish ATSIC and reminded all concerned that the final report of the Government initiated review of ATSIC in November 2003 did not “support the abolition of ATSIC but instead strengthened and revitalised its mandate and functions”.

A re-invigorated Senate Committee might ask why the Government forced ATSIC to spend more than $1.4 million on this review when it is now clear it never intended to take any notice of its advice after its intention to have Peter Reith appointed to it was successfully blocked.

The submission also pointed out the abolition of ATSIC and its replacement by the proposed advisory council “is also potentially in breach of Australia’s obligations under Article 1 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political rights. This provides that all peoples have the right of self-determination.

“By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development,” it continues. “The ability to do so is clearly constrained by replacing an elected body with a non elected one.”

He recommended the committee recognise that any national Indigenous body must be:

• representative of, and accountable to Indigenous peoples and communities;
• adequately resourced to facilitate the effective participation of Indigenous peoples in decision making processes;
• equipped with legislative powers and functions that enable it to interact with government departments and agencies with legitimacy and leverage; and,
• be able to reflect the aspirations and determine the priorities of Indigenous people and communities, rather than being constrained within the restrictions of government policy and programs.

He recommended the Committee oppose the ATSIC Bill on the basis “it does not comply with these principles and may be in breach of Australia’s human rights obligations”. The submission also said a national appointed advisory council would find it difficult to “influence the national agenda or to ensure that the national agenda is shaped by the views and desires of Indigenous peoples rather than the priorities of government”.

The submission then turned to the mainstreaming of government service delivery and noted a range of concerns with the Government’s much-vaunted COAG trial sites and a lack of performance monitoring. “As already noted,” the submission said, “anecdotal evidence and enthusiasm about the trials has been a significant factor in influencing the new proposed arrangements for mainstreaming service delivery. However the trials do not have a sufficiently rigorous performance monitoring system.”