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?

"What would all the good, white, handsomely remunerated public servants do if those demanding blacks regained control over the purse strings and the decision making processes concerning their people?"
Those "good white handsomely remunerated public servants" would most likely not give a stuff if the good, black, handsomely remunerated officers of any new Indigenous body regained control over the purse strings.
However the Australian electorate might have some concerns. After all it is taxpayers' money from the non-Indigenous component of Australian society that is used to fund most Indigenous activities.

Good afternoon
It was very interesting to read what Stephen had to say
I have'nt read Tom Calma's report as yet.
I do agree with proper voting, the democratic way is the only way
so from ground up in our community representatives who would like to stand up and make representation.Be voted in and so on.
you see I have a dream that one day Our Indigenous Affairs Minister
will be just that INDIGENOUS!
So brothers and sisters lets band together to make that possible
for the good of all.
Kindest regards

Stephen - okay, I'll be the difficult one. When writing something like this in an effort to persuade someone like myself (over 50 caucasian male) you want to first set out just what the report is proposing that you object to. I've glanced at the report but I'm not sure where this anti-democracy business comes from, and you don't spell it out. The only tangible point you make is that it limits women to 50 per cent of the places. I'm not persuaded that's a bad thing, but was any reason given for this in the report? Is that all you mean by not being democratic? You say that the report it perpetuates "mission station" practices. Um, why? Sorry, didn't get the point.

Then there is the late and unlamented ATSIC. Why was this organisation given the boot? Did more than a tiny fraction of eligible voters bother to vote for it? I think you'll find hardly anyone did, which makes your outrage over a lack of democracy harder to sustain.

In writing something like this a good rule is more argument and less outrage.

Unfortunately some people need to read the report in full to see what the main points are. Mr Hagan writes about his perception and highlights his main points to debate, not what you want him to say. He wrote what his objection is and if you can't see it, it's obvious you don't understand. Unfortunately Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders ALWAYS have to justify what is said. Go figure.

rubyappeal, none of that gets Hagen out of obeying the basic rules of presenting a case, which apply to all those who write these articles. ATSICers, like everyone else, have to spell things out. If they have a case I am happy to hear it, but what is it? Hagen says he has a grievence against the report and spends much of the article expressing outrage about this grievance - even dragging Afghanistan into it - but neglects to give basic details of the grievance. Your post does not help at all in that respect. So of course I don't understand. So what are the objections to the report, does nayone know?

rubyappeal,

Tom Calma is aboriginal too you know and a lot of indigenous advocates support him. Wouldn't you agree that caustic rhetoric that encourages emotional knee-jerk opposition to his hard-won report is most unfair? Here is a brief bio for Tom Calma and as you can see he has been and is a strong advocate for indigenous people:

http://www.hreoc.gov.au/about/president_commissioners/calma.html

I note that the Greens strongly support Tom Calma's report:

'The Australian Greens today welcomed the launch of the Social Justice report by the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Justice Commissioner Tom Calma, describing the report as a 'blueprint' for converting Kevin Rudd's apology to the stolen generations into action.

"Tom Calma's report sets out clearly the key steps the Federal Government needs to follow between now and the next election to deliver on its promises on Indigenous health, education and healing," said Senator Rachel Siewert today.

"Yet again he backs up his recommendations by pointing to a collection of success stories from community-based initiatives that have produced real outcomes for urban, rural and remote Indigenous communities."

The report calls on the Rudd Government to establish a credible national Indigenous representative body, enact a remote Indigenous education strategy, reinstate the Racial Discrimination Act, put in place a properly funded long-term plan to achieve health equality, establish a Human Rights Act and amend the Constitution.'

http://greensmps.org.au/content/media-release/tom-calmas-final-social-justice-report-a-blueprint-action-apology

I am not pushing the Greens' or Labor's barrow, just saying what about giving Tom Calma's report and recommendations a fair go. After decades of wasted effort and the loss of billions of dollars of taxpayers' money through corruption and fraud surely it is time for everyone to bet constructive and contribute, not continually carp, criticise and demolish.

From what I have gleaned Tom Calma's report isn't taking the future of Indigenous peoples out of their hands but installing Indigenous representatives in the many communities.

What the grievance appears to be is over the funding arrangements. I agree with Stephen that communities must be the instruments of their own future. Governments and others can only provide support but the real achievements and progress for Indigenous people can only come from Indigenous people. However, the use of government funds needs to be open and transparent and accountability goes across the board to all government funded programs.

Afghanistan's right to self-determination is not wholly relevant here if using it as a comparison. In Australia we are all part of the same community made up of Indigenous peoples, immigrants, those born here with anglo-saxon and European origins.

Our system seeks to achieve equality for all groups within its borders and to close the gaps for Indigenous people in relation to health and education, it can only do that as you say with full involvement of Indigenous people but funding arrangements should not detract from the ultimate goals.

When the people in indigenous communities pay the rent on the houses provided for them, & look after these houses, as well as the average private owner would, then, & only then should we even think of again giving them control of any tax payer money.

About the only thing in which they have managed to score an "A" rating has been in the corruption when they have had our taxes to spend.

Meanwhile, their councils should collect any money they wish to spend, from their own comunity. Having their own people watching the leaders, may, just may, make them accountable for the money in their hands.

If the people of PNG can find the money to pay a head tax, with no access to welfare, or public housing, I don't think it's too much to ask our people to help themselves, just a little.

In fact, I think it's only by making them personally responsible for the maintenance of their housing, & townships, that we can start to help them. Transplanted to PNG, they would all be dead in a month, appart from the politicians among then, & blokes like Stephen.

I am just so sick of carping, winging, tax payer funded, indigenous commentators.

Curmudgeon

Why don't you write something to ask these questions in the public domain? You can show all of us how to write then.

rubyappeal - this is the public domain and I'm not asking the author to write a better article I'm asking what he's complaining about as he forgot to say this. The posts gave me a better idea of what was going on, but I'm still fogged about precisely why the author was upset over the report.
If anyone wants me to write an abusive article then I'm happy to oblige but I'd have so many targets that it would be difficult to pick one.

The best post here is from DWG. Why set up separate conditions for people, isn't that what apartheid was about? We are, or should be, all Australians with one set of laws and complete equality for all.
We have freedom of religion, freedom of speech and freedom from those who would be dictators. Who could ask for better?
Some Australians need more help than others, it should be willingly given, willingly taken.
Our children should be protected, educated and taught responsibility and respect for themselves and others.
This is exactly what this country needs-and should get.