Australian Aboriginal body will be “toothless and non-representative”, activist charges

international | rights, freedoms and repression | opinion/analysis Thursday November 26, 2009 22:50 by Michael Anderson

"The Australian public and government have to accept that there continues to be a silent, yet aggressive, standoff between the government and the different Aboriginal nations."

Goodooga, northwest NSW, 26 November – Euahlayi activist Michael Anderson says the organisation being put together by Tom Calma totally ignores the more aggressive Aboriginal voices and will have prominent conservative Aborigines as key stakeholders.
Mr Anderson states in a media release that this is likely to repeat a history of conservative Aborigines joining forces with conservative government to thwart grassroots needs and aspirations.

“This been repeated in various Aboriginal rep bodies since the 1970s. From my view at this point in time, a number of these key conservative Aborigines appear to be key stakeholders and players in this more recent approach to a ‘rep body’, while the more aggressive political voices are totally ignored and left out to dry.”
Earlier this year the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Justice Commissioner, Tom Calma, delivered to the federal government the report of a steering committee for the creation of a new national representative body for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples.
The long awaited Our future in our hands - Creating a sustainable National Representative Body for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples outlined a proposed model for a new national representative body for Australian Indigenous peoples after 12 months of consultations with some of them.
Mr Anderson charges the body will be toothless.
“It is not an Aboriginal initiative at all, but rather an initiative that has been put in place by 100 dutiful Aborigines, who were approved of by Minister [Jenny] Macklin and are not representative of the grassroots opinions.
“This establishes a fundamental failure, on the part of those who accepted the invitation, to state from the outset that there was an absolute need for greater and diverse participation by other Aboriginal people around Australia.
“The so-called regional consultation processes were attended by a small number of persons who got to know about it, but in the main too many grassroots people missed out.”
Mr Anderson says Mr Calma’s statement indicated that he had worked with a select few Aborigines and bureaucrats on formulating a constitutional framework for the rep body as well as establishing protocols.
“It would be good if Tom Calma named all the members of his working party,” Anderson demands.
“Tom Calma and his committee must accept that there will be many Aboriginal people who will have very strong views about various matters and issues that affect Aboriginal people.”
“People who express these views and who make a stand on behalf of their people should not be penalised based on a conservative code of conduct.”

Mr Anderson’s statement in full:

Tom Calma’s proposal for an Aboriginal ‘Rep Body’ (sic) is totally flawed for a number of reasons. It is not an Aboriginal initiative at all, but rather an initiative that has been put in place by 100 dutiful Aborigines, who were approved of by Minister [Jenny] Macklin and are not representative of the grassroots opinions. This establishes a fundamental failure on the part of those who accepted the invitation to state from the outset that there was an absolute need for greater and diverse participation by other Aboriginal people around Australia.
The so-called regional consultation processes were attended by a small number of persons who got to know about it, but in the main too many grassroots people missed out. Tom Calma’s statement indicated that he had been working with a selected few Aborigines, and no doubt some bureaucrats, on formulating a constitutional framework for the rep body as well as establishing protocols. It would be good if Tom Calma named all the members of his working party.
Tom Calma and his committee must accept that there will be many Aboriginal people, who will have very strong views about various matters and issues that affect Aboriginal people. People who express these views and who make a stand on behalf of their people should not be penalised based on a conservative code of conduct.
From my experience in establishing the first National Aboriginal Consultative Committee (NACC) in 1973, I can suggest that here is a strong possibility for history to repeat itself, if the code of conduct developed should outlaw militant-type political opinions or suggestions. I remember strong political arguments and strategies emanating in 1973/74 from the first elected representatives, only to find the conservative Aborigines joining forces with the conservative government to have the NACC sacked. The conservative Aborigines, who worked with the government on that occasion were then rewarded by having them establish a new body with a much stricter and watered down terms of reference in regards to the type of advice that should be given to the government.
This been repeated in various Aboriginal Rep bodies since the 1970s. From my view at this point in time, a number of these key conservative Aborigines appear to be key stakeholders and players in this more recent approach to a ‘Rep Body’, while the more aggressive political voices are totally ignored and left out to dry.
As a Human Rights Commissioner Tom Calma should understand the need to be consistent with international laws governing human rights and the Rep Body must incorporate the rights that have been established in the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.
The Australian public and government have to accept that there continues to be a silent, yet aggressive, standoff between the government and the different Aboriginal nations. The gap that exists between Aboriginal and non- Aboriginal Australia is a testament to this standoff. Any rep body that is put in place must be empowered, to be not just an advisory service, but to guide government policy on the right of Aboriginal peoples to self-determination.
The reason we have so many failures is that government continues to refuse to accept that Aboriginal peoples are different from the rest of Australians and have very different needs. It has to be addressed in an honest, forthright and culturally appropriate manner.
If the government wants to continue with their denial of Aboriginal rights and continue to offer temporary ‘special measures’, there can be no solutions. We are Aborigines. We have our own national identity, language, customs and traditions. We have our own religious beliefs and Law/Lore. We must therefore talk openly and honestly with each other about an integrated approach to locating solutions for the future.
To be advisers with no power or authority cannot address this need and is a far cry from self-determination.
We need not establish an advisory Rep Body at this point, but rather establish a rep body of Aboriginal people to formulate a treaty process that will serve the needs in terms of development, be it cultural, social, economic, religious or other - without this nothing can be achieved.
Whilst we have certain things, the bulk of the Aboriginal community say: ‘We don’t own anything. White people own it.’ And so this means there is no motivation for people to take pride in what they have because everything is on loan only. You can’t restore pride and dignity in peoples if we are denied the opportunity to have pride and dignity.
Everything that happens in Australia should be modelled on what is in the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. As Human Rights Commissioner, Tom Calma has a legal and dutiful obligation to ensure this happens.
Contact: Michael Anderson 0427 292 492