Page 3067 - Week 10 - Tuesday, 23 August 2005
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
I am certain there are portions of the ACT indigenous community who have never been consulted or, indeed, never agreed it was a good idea to construct yet another commission, yet another layer, to preside over Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander affairs in the ACT. We already have some very well-managed consultative councils in Canberra that are tasked to advise the Chief Minister, this minister for indigenous affairs, and the territory government on the matters that our indigenous community want addressed by government. Why place yet another layer in their way?
Sadly, we have seen the emphasis on money, power and status rather than a focus on Aboriginal people, and it is often standing in the way of a true desire to help Aboriginal communities. ATSIC certainly did not represent value for money for its constituents. The fact that 20 per cent of eligible people voted in the last ATSIC elections means that 80 per cent of people did not vote. I believe this sent a clear message that ATSIC was not representing the vast majority of indigenous Australians. What it set out to achieve could not be fully delivered in terms of indigenous health, education or work opportunities. It is quite obvious that the funding—and we are talking millions of dollars of funding—intended to improve the quality of life for indigenous Australians certainly did not. It did not reach all of the communities in the way it should have done or was intended it should do. Many people started off with good ideas and good intentions but power, in some quarters, seems to have clouded people’s original judgment, passion and drive.
It is important to note that the National Indigenous Council is by no means a replacement for ATSIC. It is a representative body formed by energetic and committed people who want to see change. They have not been invited onto the council because they are yes men but rather because, by and large, they are outspoken and do not represent any one particular interest group. A minority report from the commonwealth states:
The amount of money spent, can no longer be the benchmark: outcomes must be the measure.
Never a truer statement has been made because, if it had not been all about money, we would have seen far more positive outcomes to date. A fresh start is desperately needed to allow our indigenous people to see dignity and respect restored. In the Canberra Times of 3 March 2005, Jon Stanhope argues that the abolition of ATSIC sends a message to this country’s indigenous Australians that:
You cannot be trusted to make wise choices for yourself. You lack wisdom to cast a vote in your own interests. Not only that, you lack the capacity to nurture from within your ranks the sort of leaders acceptable to Australia.
In fact, the commonwealth interim report states:
The reforms the Government is introducing are much more far reaching than the abolition of ATSIC.
It is not particularly insightful, on the part of the Chief Minister and minister for indigenous affairs, to talk about retaining any model based on ATSIC. ATSIC needed to be abolished so that Australia’s traditional landowners can have more of a direct say in their futures. Governments of the day have to realise the welfare and wellbeing of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people require a holistic approach—spirit, soul and
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .