Page 1408 - Week 05 - Tuesday, 6 May 2008
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Although the committee never met, a consultation about the most appropriate model for an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander representative body has been a long and involved process, which I can testify to, having been to one or two of the consultations. However, from my discussions with different ATSI groups about the bill, it seems possible that this consultative process, as with so many of the ACT government’s consultations, talked only about something that the government had already decided was best rather than the empowering process of opening up a forum for ideas—the ideas in this case of one of the most disempowered groups in our political process.
In discussions about this bill I have heard phrases like “toothless tiger”, “waste of money”, and “just more of the same”. No doubt these concerns were also raised during the consultation process, and obviously the government feels that they have been adequately addressed or this bill would not be going ahead. It is interesting to note that Professor John Warhurst said that he thought any elected body that was just advisory was, in one sense, “a toothless tiger” but, on the other hand, “a platform to have a say”.
I appreciate the desire for an elected Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander platform in the ACT. I do, however, have a few concerns. The minister’s office has advised my staff that the body will be independent and will be allowed to liaise independently with media and the community. This is reassuring and it means that the tiger will not be entirely toothless. My concern is that the bill does not make it clear that the body is independent and can have an independent voice; otherwise I would not have had to ask the staff. So, while the government is currently happy for the body to talk to media and other interested parties, the legislation does not protect this right, and the government could take that independence away. That is why I have tabled an amendment to safeguard the independence of that voice.
Another of my concerns relates to the transient nature of much of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander community in the ACT. We have a small and a mobile group of Indigenous people in our community, as noted by the social and cultural profile completed in 2004. It has been raised anecdotally with me that this mobility of the population, along with the fact that many of our Indigenous residents come from elsewhere, can mean that “many of them feel diffidence about becoming involved in local affairs”. That is from the summary notes of a public meeting at Woden in 2006.
This does not bode well for ensuring high numbers of voters for the body’s election. I have been given rough estimates by the department that there are approximately 2,000 people in the ACT eligible to vote in the election and that about 20 people are expected to nominate for the seven seats. I hope that these estimates are met or exceeded and that this level of enthusiasm continues for future elections.
The ACT Indigenous population contains a number of zealous and vocal families, all working hard towards improving recognition, support and representation for the Indigenous community. Robust public debate between these families is important to ensure considered and quality outcomes for the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander residents of the ACT. But history has shown us that tensions between the families can also hinder the collaborative process.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .