For the NCAFP to be truly independent of the government it needs to be financially independent. This means obtaining funding/donations from the aboriginal community. To be representative this funding will need to come from the greater community, although most likely it will become like most other think tanks and become a spokes-group for various vested interests. I'm not well informed on the wild rivers project, but it seems the aboriginal voices in the debate are from groups representing development ($) vs tourism industries ($).

Some good points and valid concerns by Stephen Hagan. OLO. 25/1/10

The Ethics Council: some inconvenient truths?

"Ironically the recent announcement by Commissioner Tom Calma about the Representative Body’s new Ethic Council immediately raises issues of public sector ethics and governance some would prefer to ignore. Calma’s own appointment to the Ethics Council (through the Steering Committee he established and chaired) raises ethical issues. According to the APS Code of Conduct an employee must: etc...."

Even though Disappointingly after Stephen was appointed Editor of the National Indigenous Times:

“National Indigenous Times Editor, Stephen Hagan softens his hard-line stance to give the Congress a chance of success and will keep an eye on their progress.”!

However,did you read the S.H. article before your post Edward ? Or are you off on your own trip ?

Arthur(not a bully)Bell

One of the most critical tasks ahead for this new body will be what every singular political entity must accomplish and this is the trust and mandate from the people it purports to represent. As with non-Indigenous politics, Indigenous political views are as broad and varied.

While ATSIC did provide a national leadership forum it failed to mobilise and capture and represent Indigenous voices at the grassroots- and especially the voices of Indigenous women.

Whilst the architects of this new body have wisely split the gender roles in its governance one should not assume that Indigenous women all have the same political views - any more than Indigenous men.

The development of a national representative council, with 120 delegates from across the country may appear to be a simple task but it is not. Urban Vs Regional Vs Remote "issues" are not evenly spread across the nation 'democratically, some issues (such as the NT intervention) require immediate attention, some do not.

Q. How will prioritisation of issues be addressed without internal disintegration?

Q. How will the issues that peak Indigenous organisations are advocating for be handled?

Other questions arise in terms of its capacity to engage 'politically' within the "main stream" political culture. Who will government listen to? Will Abbott listen to this new body or will he prefer to listen to Noel Pearson?

Because this new body will have absolutely no formal capacity on legislative review it is difficult to imagine how it will have any political clout beyond expressing its 'opinion'.

Finally, in their almost "paranoid" bid NOT to recreate ATSIC it appears that they have created a body that is already more rhetoric than political substance.

Indigenous people need a national body that is not afraid of saying what it stands for. This is very different to saying what it is NOT over and over and over again.

Last words: If a a camel is a horse designed by a committee...

Wow! We've got the Commonwealth Games in India, & now this. Our cup runneth over.

What did we do to deserve 2 jokes at once?