Stephen, great to read some contrarian analysis on this topic from soemone who has a direct stake. I confess I am still unsure why it is necessary to have such a body in the first place. Our electoral system provides ample means by which indigenous representatives could exercise significant power within mainstream structures - e.g. state, territory and federal government - if they chose to participate. I know there are several examples where they do (and have) so it's clear to me the option is available and workable. The Calma plan, like Pat Dodson's recent claim that there are only 2 types of Australians - those who support his reconciliation and those who (basically) wear bed sheets over their heads - makes me wonder about the public leadership of indigenous Australians and what they actually want to achieve over (say) the next few decades in terms of lifting their constituents out of the mire of economic dependence that is the most tangible source of their disempowerment. Noel Pearson's "wailing wall" comment really rings true to me. Engagement should be on terms that will engender respect between indigenous and non-indigenous. The Calma plan doesn't seem to be about engagement at all. I hope we're not about to waste another 30 years embracing intangible "feel good" stuff at the expense of a real engagement on substantive issues with one goal - reconciliation of living standards.

Stephen, I generally agree with your comments in OLO but after reading the heading, my immediate thoughts were, "Looks like we are on for a bit of a debate about all this."

After reading what you had to say, all I can say is that I once again totally agree with you. It is time to get rid of these people whose only aim in life seems to be to hang on to power and get as much for themselves out of the system that they possible can, without any regard for those who they pretend to represent.

I particularly agree with your comments re the percentage of female representatives. In general they are the ones who seem to be capable of looking after their mob without any thought of what is in it for them, which is more than can be said for many of the men who have been on councils in the past.

Keep up the heat on them mate.

David

Stephen,
Well written, the whole situation with our peoples is that they are a stone age people trying to be brought into a high-tech society. On the one hand we have our beliefs,culture,dreamtime & the general caring of the land implanted in our lives then on the other we have this high-tech rapid society that even the ones that have been raised with have trouble keeping pace with.
It is not just our peoples that are getting misdirected it is the whole of society in general.
Where is the mass input into what the people really do want now & in the future? I cannot see where this plan would succeed anymore with our peoples than it would with the wider community.
For the future we all should be looking at being a single nation recognising the heritage of this country & the beliefs & culture of the indigenous while incorporating that which is good of the modern society & the mixed races that will be this countries future peoples.
This is where we all are making a mistake we talk of a future but build for the present if we are interested in the future then we start with the children. It is not what the adults of today want it is what the children of today & the adults of tomorrow want. Thanks all for your time have a happy day. Dave.

Great article, Stephen, spot-on. Purely advisory, yes, whatever form it takes.

Back in 1973, before the first NACC elections, it was suggested (I think by Bill Ryan in Darwin?) that more effective representation would require local and regional representative bodies being elected, then state representative bodies, and only then a national representative body, in order to mobilise grassroots involvement, with ideas and opinions and proposals filtering up, as it were, to regional, state and national levels, rather than appointing a single national body with their (usually airy-fairy) decisions expected to filter down. Eagles fly, but chooks lay the eggs.

Yes, why restrict women's involvement to fifty per cent ? After all, of the ten thousand or so Indigenous tertiary students at present, nearly two thirds are women. Of the 24,000 graduates, close to two thirds are women. Yet women also look after the babies, the kids, the rellies and the house. God knows what the men are doing, but that's their choice and they will have to wear it.

Keep up your courageous work, Stephen, we all need you !

rmg1859@yahoo.com.au

Joe

Aboriginal politics will always be different to federal or state politics, because it tends to get less press coverage. Therefore, the people involved would ordinarily tend to have a lower profile. The problem is that elected politicians love publicity. Many of the people in ATSIC responded to this challenge by making headline grabbing, often unhelpful comments. It was the best way to get re-elected, but ultimately poisoned relations with the broader community. Stephen needs to think carefully about whether he wants to return to the bad old days of ATSIC.

Not being Indigenous, and not having read Tom Calma's report, I can only respond to what Stephen has written, which seems reasonable.

I did see Tom Calma interviewed on ABC TV and wondered what on Earth he was proposing, and having read Stephen's comments here, they do echo somewhat my first thoughts.

I am struck by this from Stephen though, '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'.

Considering Macklin has failed to produce a single benefit through her and Rudd's total acceptance of Howard's Domestic Invasion Plan, and I heard last night that houses were to cost $500k each to build, although not a single one had been built after all these years, I doubt she will intervene anywhere, ever.

I think Stephen must be using irony here.

Macklin and the ALP are just as much tarred with the same brush as Howard and Abbott in their 'deserving poor' approach to Indigenous people, so it seems.

Years ago, just after the Second World War, there used to be housing coops all over the country where people signed on to help build their neighbours house, and in turn have theirs built too.

Materials were scarce, and expensive, and many houses were built using the adobe or pise methods of mud building, as many civilisations have over hundreds of thousands of years.

Mud houses are warm, or cool, safe, cheap, longlasting, beautiful and easy to build by half skilled people. Mud houses do not forego water or power.

I read such a book, and two others, before embarking, totally unskilled otherwise in building, on my own mudhouse. Even allowing for imported 'corro' sheets, tradespeople to do the skilled work, and a 'gaffer' or two to keep the building on track, there is no way a house would cost much more than $150k to build, even in the NT.

New skills would be transferable, to build the mud schools,shops and hospitals.

Couldn't Tom attend to something more pressing?