Today’s Opposition Organ reports that the eminent indigenous academic, Professor Marcia Langton, believes that the Indigenous 2020 Summit Stream, consisting of people selected by the Federal Government, was uninformed and unrepresentative, and failed to adequately address policies to secure the learning, health and economic future of indigenous children.
However, Professor Langton’s views are reported in a way which implies that she is also opposed to the creation of an elected indigenous representative body to advise on policies.
As Mark mentioned a few days ago, the establishment of such a body is also opposed by Warren Mundine and Wesley Aird. Yet Mr. Aird was also highly critical of the Summit Stream, suggesting that its outcomes would be as “predictable as a Zimbabwean election”.
This suggests that Professor Langton and Messrs. Mundine and Aird are in something of a quandary, the nature of which can be stated as follows.
There are basically two ways in which Federal governments can consult with indigenous Australians on policies affecting indigenous Australians. They can pick and choose which indigenous individuals they will listen to, without involving indigenous Australians as a whole in making that selection. Or they can establish democratic mechanisms through which indigenous Australians can elect a representative council of some kind. As Mark wrote, such a body need not be an ATSIC Mk II. Indigenous people with whom I discussed ATSIC during that body’s existence were critical of it, not because it was democratic and representative, but because it wasn’t democratic and representative enough.
Now it’s Democracy 101 that cherry-picking of indigenous individuals by a mainly non-indigenous government will result in the creation of advisory bodies which are more likely to be, in Professor Langton’s words, uninformed and unrepresentative than would be the case if they were elected by and from indigenous people themselves. The question this raises is whether Professor Langton and Mr. Aird (and possibly Mr. Mundine) would agree that their own criticisms of the cherry-picked Indigenous 2020 Summit Stream constitute an implicit concession of this point. (One could add that the Summit Stream’s support for an elected body suggests that its participants at least had the humility to recognise this point themselves.)
Another way of posing the issue is that, if Professor Langton and Messrs. Mundine and Aird believe that picking and choosing of “indigenous voices” by the mainly non-indigenous government is to be preferred over indigenous election of a representative council, are they prepared to gracefully accept that a change of government should bring with it a change to which “indigenous voices”, and which of their policy ideas, get to be picked and chosen? Conversely, if they are not prepared to live with such an outcome, are they then prepared to reconsider the merits of an elected indigenous representative council, for which they and others who share their views could stand for election on the basis of arguing for and winning support for those views amongst indigenous Australians?
Mr. Mundine is reported as saying that an elected representative body would not have much support “on the ground” amongst indigenous Australians. This simply poses the basic issue in a different form. Should the whitefella government pick and choose the say-so of Mr. Mundine on this issue, or that of some other indigenous individual/s (e.g. Pat Dodson) with a different view, or should this assertion be tested by some form of plebiscite of indigenous Australians themselves?
A final question is whether Professor Langton, and Messrs. Aird and Mundine, would not agree that their own positions would carry much more political and moral authority if they had the imprimatur of proven support from indigenous Australians through a democratic process, rather than anointment as “the voice of contemporary indigenous Australia” by the same people who, not so long back, were anointing Mangosuthu Buthelezi as “the voice of black South Africa”.
Good post, Paul.
Looking at it through a broader lens, the whole question of Indigenous representation reveals a fracture line in the practice and philosophy of liberal democracy. On one hand, efforts to be inclusive risk co-optation (and you’re right to suggest that the co-opted could as easily be the Dodsons as the Langtons or Pearsons) and on the other the principle of representation is based on formal equality without regard for status. So difference is recognised through the policy mechanisms of the state, but the political basis of legitimacy requires identity (and not in the sense of identity politics). The premise of formal political equality among citizens works against a representative Indigenous council – and it lies behind a lot of the opposition.
Indigenous peoples themselves have a different way of doing democracy – which does involve some claims to status – but also forms of negotiation which promote conversation among those with differing affiliations. I’ve heard it said by an Indigenous academic that the failure to recognise this is also at the heart of a lot of the difficulty a basically white State (in its philosophical and historical roots, that is) has with interfacing with Indigenous people.
“Should the whitefella government pick and choose …”
Australia is a multicultural and deomcratic society and consequently people of all races decide who governs. It is therefore inaccurate to talk of a “whitefella government”. What’s more the democratically elected government is perfectly entitled to pick and chose its advisers on all issues including indigenous ones.
One thing I’ve never understood is why Aboriginal people need the Australian government to set up a representative body for them.
Why can’t they set up something along the lines that they prefer, and present the Australian government with a fait accompli?
Or, at least, present a preferred model to the Australian government as a fait accompli.
I do realize that Aboriginal people are very far from a homogeneous mass, but surely it’s not beyond the capability of their existing leaders to sort out a model that represents this diversity?
If that commments thread at the Australian is any indication of public opinion, we are stuffed. What an igginerant bunch of posturing thugs.
Mark’s remark about White and Black forms of doing democracy is the pointer to a long discussion. The Westminster mob came here with a top-down concept of democracy, in which an elite was slowly forced to expand its franchise in order to survive and prosper. Democracy here is being used for a very different purpose – to solve chronic problems in remote Aboriginal communities (with not much mention of Redfern IMHO).
I only have the sketchiest grasp of this, but community activists have worked with models of democracy amongst underclass groups for a long time, with mixed results. There is a heap of international experience on this, which workers and politicians access in conferences and study tours.
We don’t hear much of this experience in our domestic debate. We get tangled up in the blame game, in bureaucratic power and lack of imagination, in questions of race, culture and empowerment, in the political gestures which our governing figures see as reality.
I keep remembering various basic moments in which good-hearted and Leftish Victorian government workers have gone to communities and said: “What do YOU want to do”.. and been flummoxed by a tide of worms coming out of many, many cans. Everything is useless if it doesn’t relate to real, lived experience; almost nothing seems possible if you take that into account. Partly because they lead quickly to lesson two in the primer of raw power: the activist asks, writes an answer on a clipboard, goes back to the central authority and is told, “You’ve got to be joking. because….. Insert your favourite rationale, good bureaucratic reason, bit of theory, or simple racist or classist prejudice from this point onwards.”
“Everything is useless if it doesn’t relate to real, lived experience”
And there’s the rub. “real, lived experiences” are different for everybody and there is never going to be a one size fits all solution to indigineous issues. The issues in Redfern are very different to the issues in Aurukun.
Democracy is wonderful, but too much of it is crippling. Inagine if very piece of legislation required a referendum, or very idea needed to be debated in a 2020 style summit?
Sometimes the governing body just needs to step in and say ‘we think this is the solution and we’re imposing it’. Intervention anybody?
It is not just a matter of an elected vs. appointed body.
Appointed advisors don’t need to be elected, they are part of the day to day running of government, there are apponted advisors to all ministries.
Will an elected body, if there is one, simply be an alternative mode for the minister to gather advice or will it have power over programs and funding in Aboriginal affairs? Will its mandate empower it to make real decisions and execute them, or is the vote simply a popularity contest?
I again point out that the 2001 census data indicates almost 70% of Aboriginals are in mixed relationships. This compares with less than 20% for Australians of Indian lineage. Clearly Aboriginals themselves are not buying into the argument that they are somehow incommensurate with mainstream society. Let’s lay the uniqueness myth to rest and celebrate togetherness. http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2002/08/14/1029113955646.html
Democracy is wonderful, but too much of it is crippling. Inagine if very piece of legislation required a referendum, or very idea needed to be debated in a 2020 style summit?
Sometimes the governing body just needs to step in and say ‘we think this is the solution and we’re imposing it’. Intervention anybody?
And the best part is, because you’re white, these “interventions” won’t affect you, only those other kind of people, so the “just do it” approach becomes very easy. It’s all happening far away as well, so no wuckers mate.
I’m sure if the government unilaterally decided to tear down your house to build a new road you’d want some input into the process.
Helen,
With all due respect that’s a pretty silly observation – there are no ‘issues’ in my area that require an ‘intervention’ I live in the affluent and comfortable suburbs of SE Melbourne… so the chance of someone tearing down my house is pretty low!!
However – I’m quite prepared to tolerate government interference in my life to ensure society functions in the way it should. Speed limits on the road, income taxes, etc etc
Now, we could get all nice and democratic and talk-festy and 2020 summit our way to solving Aboriginal ‘issues’ – or we could ‘just do it’…. hmmm, I wonder which way Rudd will go. It will be a good test to see whether the symbolism of saying sorry actually leads to meaningful improvement in Aboriginal lives.
But whatever we “just do” will be more likely to succeed if we take the advice of Aboriginal people on what should be done – and even more likely to succeed if Aboriginal people are empowered to do it themselves. This is the whole point of establishing democratic structures which empower indigenous Australians generally, rather than whichever individuals have the ear of the government of the day.
Yes it is time for each Aboriginal community to create their won system of representation. This should not be hard to do. Simple elect their own local identity. These reps form themselves in area groups which meet on a national level. Each rep will only represent their own local community, not any political group or party. This would mean that the grass root have a say.
They must not have any responsibility to spend money. Government must be responsible how money is spent, that is their duty. In the past, the governments have been able to elude their responsibilities, by passing the task to Aboriginal groups.
No other Australian culture group are held responsible for government failure.
We have already seen how well an elected indigenous representative body works.
Why go back for another piece of the same ATSIC biscuit?
Why would ANYBODY who is indigenous want a carbon copy rerun of the ATSIC fiasco?
Try reading the post, steve:
As with past posts on this subject it may need to be faced that indigenous representation that satisfies Indigenous Australians is impossible. Paul’s challenge to Messrs Langton, Mundine and Aird to test their own political and moral authority among their own is a good one. Historian John Huxley has argued that aboriginal politics vis-a-vis white Australian institutions are oppositional by nature. I tend to agree but as with the reference to recent Census data which also shows spectacular growth in those claiming aboriginality, the issue is only going to get more pronounced and as Robert Merkel questions they should be dealing with it in the first instance themselves.
I think it’s quite backwards to claim that Aboriginal people should be sorting Aboriginal representation out among themselves. At the end of the day, any such body needs to be recognised as the official voice of Indigenous Australians by the federal government and if those self-proclaimed voices of Aboriginal Australia hijack a process being run without the Australian government playing a role then the cause won’t have been helped at all.
No argument from me that the government, federal and state, be involved Sam. In the case of the Feds they express a desire to deeal with a peak representative body of indigenous people, perhaps even separating Aboriginal from Torres Strait Islander if desired. They offer the services of the Australian Electoral Office and ideally some public funding to facilitate the process, then stand aside and wait for a result. No picking favourites or threats to disband or, as in the case of ATSIC, overwelming the administration with constant reviews. By their acquiescence in abolishing ATSIC Mk 1 while in opposition, the Rudd Government should be offering nothing less than full support to quickly restore the ideal.
Pablo,
I agree with what you’re proposing but I’d like to see the principles of subsidiarity applied. Whatever representative body is founded should be organised such that when dealing with a Queensland legal issue the Queensland-based representatives are consulted and when a Torres Strait issue comes up the Islander and Cape York representatives (and their communities) are involved.
I very much doubt that consensus will consistently be achieved on the national level in this body but at least the chance for all Indigenous people to have a say (through their representatives) will happen.
It’s pretty clear to me that we’re going to have more representatives in this Indigenous body than in the Australian parliament. I have a feeling that this won’t sit well with others who aren’t keen on such a body being founded least of all it granting “more” representation to blacks than whites get. Mainstream Australia does have three levels of government, though, and the Indigenous Body would exist for entirely separate reasons.
Interesting how the prospect of a democratic free-for-all for an indigenous body to represent their views is about as anathema to Canberra as a freely elected republican head of state.
I guess if that is just not politically feasible along the lines you suggest Sam, then the need for much greater ’supervision’ by a Rudd Government of a peak indigenous body has to be faced. My concern is that the pitfalls evident even to indigenous voters in the ATSIC experience (eg clannism) will be forgotten if we delay too long. Let a thousand flowers bloom I say.