ABC News from a few days ago:
A new national representative body for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders has been unveiled in Sydney this morning.
The National Congress of Australia’s First Peoples is the first Indigenous representative body since 2005, when the Howard government abolished the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission (ATSIC) amid claims of corruption and mismanagement.
Former ATSIC chair Geoff Clark isn’t terribly impressed:
GEOFF Clark has slammed the launch of the new national indigenous representative body, declaring it a “non-event.”
The outspoken Aboriginal activist said the new National Congress of Australia’s First Peoples was undemocratic and subservient to the federal government.
I have no idea how seriously one should take Clark, given his well-documented past and the level of political analysis demonstrated by this piece of wishful thinking:
Mr Clark said recent poor polling by Prime Minister Kevin Rudd and the Labor Party was in part a result of the government’s actions on indigenous affairs. “There was the big sorry from Kevin Rudd a couple of years ago and then nothing since,” Mr Clark said.
That said, for all I know the position he articulated on this new body may be one with currency in indigenous leadership circles.
For what it’s worth, as a complete outsider looking in, indigenous Australians have suffered dearly from not having people who can speak for them all, leaving white politicians to pick and choose whose voices they wish to hear. And this body avoids the problem that ATSIC had of being a little bit pregnant – partly an advocacy body, partly a service delivery body, and thus highly compromised at both. I’ve read that some indigenous activists seek what is essentially a parallel government, which gets handed a cheque by the Austrailan government once a year and is then left to its own devices. Even if that was what should happen, it’s never going to. Given that, a pure advocacy body, free to beat up on the government without having to worry about being responsible for service delivery, seems like the right model for now.
But, then again, this still, as Clark points out, has the whiff of something coming from the top down, rather than the bottom up. So it going to be a body that can reach and articulate consensus positions across Australia’s diverse indigenous communities?
Elsewhere: Michael Anderson expresses similar distaste to Clark; again, I don’t know whether to take this as representative of broader opinion or not.
There has been a long period of grass roots consultation on this. check out the AHRC site for details and documents
There has been a long period of grass roots consultation on this. check out the AHRC site for details and documents
What Clark says is true. Do not be duped. The National Congress of Australia’s First Peoples is completely unrepresentative. They are splittwrs and sell outs.
Progressive activists should support the First Peoples of Australia National Congress.
What Clark says is true. Do not be duped. The National Congress of Australia’s First Peoples is completely unrepresentative. They are splittwrs and sell outs.
Progressive activists should support the First Peoples of Australia National Congress.
ATSIC was set up by the federal government for the convenience of the federal government. In theory, it saved the government the effort of finding out what the various, disparate Aboriginal groups actually wanted. In practice, all it did was encourage those who wanted to be dismissive about Aborigines.
Part of the problem was that it was supposed to represent all Aborigines. The reality is that different groups have very different needs and priorities so the messages were diluted and the government of the day clearly felt that they would get better advice by bypassing ATSIC.
Another part of the problem was that the whole exercise was government funded. This gave governments the idea that they should have some control over how the money was spent and encouraged the organization to set up its own bureaucracy. The dilemma here is that there are too many small Aboriginal groups for the government to deal directly with them all while depending on intermediaries such as ATSIC can lead to message distortion even if the intermediary is acting with the best of intentions.
The best result may be to leave it to Aborigines to decide how they want to organize and how they want to relate to governments. If Aborigines think it worthwhile they have the political skills to form alliances for dealing with government. (Think the effectiveness of the informal “Cape York Aboriginal” alliance for example.)
Effective commitment, support and involvement will be far more likely if the effort has been designed and paid for by Aborigines themselves.
ATSIC was set up by the federal government for the convenience of the federal government. In theory, it saved the government the effort of finding out what the various, disparate Aboriginal groups actually wanted. In practice, all it did was encourage those who wanted to be dismissive about Aborigines.
Part of the problem was that it was supposed to represent all Aborigines. The reality is that different groups have very different needs and priorities so the messages were diluted and the government of the day clearly felt that they would get better advice by bypassing ATSIC.
Another part of the problem was that the whole exercise was government funded. This gave governments the idea that they should have some control over how the money was spent and encouraged the organization to set up its own bureaucracy. The dilemma here is that there are too many small Aboriginal groups for the government to deal directly with them all while depending on intermediaries such as ATSIC can lead to message distortion even if the intermediary is acting with the best of intentions.
The best result may be to leave it to Aborigines to decide how they want to organize and how they want to relate to governments. If Aborigines think it worthwhile they have the political skills to form alliances for dealing with government. (Think the effectiveness of the informal “Cape York Aboriginal” alliance for example.)
Effective commitment, support and involvement will be far more likely if the effort has been designed and paid for by Aborigines themselves.
I think there are a few points to raise on this one. Firstly the notion of representation within the Indigenous “community” (if there is such a thing) is often conceived of along very different lines to that of western based governance systems. This has long proved a challenge in any inter cultural setting which seeks to satisfy the question of legitimacy on both sides of the fence. In this regard popular voting for representatives does not address the complex issues around how and why (some) Indigenous people become legitimate representatives for others. However this perhaps is a side issue in relation to the relevance or importance of the National Congress of Australia’s First Peoples, which may be about other things (i.e. not about “representing” Indigenous people at all but providing the illusion of representation for the majority of the voters who want to see “something”).
Secondly a related point about “leadership”. The whole idea of “Indigenous leadership” in Australia, in which prominent public Indigenous people somehow come to be regarded as “leaders” is just a western fantasy if we are talking about the relationship between “leaders” and the people they “lead”. Leadership is a far more complex process in the Indigenous community, and is not really translatable from western systems. This has proved an insurmountable challenge as efforts are made (or not made) to develop systems that can legitimately work across the western/ Indigenous divide (which itself simplifies things way too much). Until greater understanding of how “leadership” works in all the Indigenous contexts around Australia is developed we will keep making the same mistake: seeing what we think we see (leadership and governance as conceived on our terms) and working with that, rather than making efforts to understand what is, and then confronting the challenge of how to work with that.
Therefore in some senses Johns point is right, creating national systems will provide the illusion that there is a legitimate body there whose “voice” should be listened to which actually works against the complex needs of Indigenous people, families and communities wherever they may be. However his point about how it should be funded (by people themselves) effectively eliminates the rights of many Indigenous people to fairly negotiate with government (and just have a look in the budget papers to see how much money the Cape York Institute has got from the government over the past five years!). And this is before you start asking “organising for what?”, a critical question in terms of legitimacy again, particularly in the Indigenous context.
I think there are a few points to raise on this one. Firstly the notion of representation within the Indigenous “community” (if there is such a thing) is often conceived of along very different lines to that of western based governance systems. This has long proved a challenge in any inter cultural setting which seeks to satisfy the question of legitimacy on both sides of the fence. In this regard popular voting for representatives does not address the complex issues around how and why (some) Indigenous people become legitimate representatives for others. However this perhaps is a side issue in relation to the relevance or importance of the National Congress of Australia’s First Peoples, which may be about other things (i.e. not about “representing” Indigenous people at all but providing the illusion of representation for the majority of the voters who want to see “something”).
Secondly a related point about “leadership”. The whole idea of “Indigenous leadership” in Australia, in which prominent public Indigenous people somehow come to be regarded as “leaders” is just a western fantasy if we are talking about the relationship between “leaders” and the people they “lead”. Leadership is a far more complex process in the Indigenous community, and is not really translatable from western systems. This has proved an insurmountable challenge as efforts are made (or not made) to develop systems that can legitimately work across the western/ Indigenous divide (which itself simplifies things way too much). Until greater understanding of how “leadership” works in all the Indigenous contexts around Australia is developed we will keep making the same mistake: seeing what we think we see (leadership and governance as conceived on our terms) and working with that, rather than making efforts to understand what is, and then confronting the challenge of how to work with that.
Therefore in some senses Johns point is right, creating national systems will provide the illusion that there is a legitimate body there whose “voice” should be listened to which actually works against the complex needs of Indigenous people, families and communities wherever they may be. However his point about how it should be funded (by people themselves) effectively eliminates the rights of many Indigenous people to fairly negotiate with government (and just have a look in the budget papers to see how much money the Cape York Institute has got from the government over the past five years!). And this is before you start asking “organising for what?”, a critical question in terms of legitimacy again, particularly in the Indigenous context.
But that’s just the problem. It seems to me that, in terms of the big picture, Aboriginals haven’t been a particularly effective lobby for their interests – certainly not in the recent past.
But that’s just the problem. It seems to me that, in terms of the big picture, Aboriginals haven’t been a particularly effective lobby for their interests – certainly not in the recent past.
I think that is right Robert, while Aboriginal people undoubtedly have political skills (just visit any community and see how decisions get made), these skills have been developed and honed for use in the local context. Given the issues around representation and legitimacy (and the politics that go along with it ) it is highly likely therefore that the systems of governance that are legitimate in the eyes of Indigenous people (living their ordinary lives) are just not suited to working with government. It really it a question of scale, and in this situation “incommensurability” comes to mind.
Which brings us back to the National Congress of Australia’s First Peoples. I cannot see how this can be a forum which can be said to “represent” Australian Indigenous people in any real sense. It is either: a clumsy attempt to create a national forum because the government thinks we need one; a smart attempt at creating the impression that we take the needs of Indigenous people seriously (without having to do anything much); or (the most likely) an effort to “do something” which emanates from a sense that creating a representative body is the right thing to do, but without the requisite knowledge or the inclination to do it properly.
I think that is right Robert, while Aboriginal people undoubtedly have political skills (just visit any community and see how decisions get made), these skills have been developed and honed for use in the local context. Given the issues around representation and legitimacy (and the politics that go along with it ) it is highly likely therefore that the systems of governance that are legitimate in the eyes of Indigenous people (living their ordinary lives) are just not suited to working with government. It really it a question of scale, and in this situation “incommensurability” comes to mind.
Which brings us back to the National Congress of Australia’s First Peoples. I cannot see how this can be a forum which can be said to “represent” Australian Indigenous people in any real sense. It is either: a clumsy attempt to create a national forum because the government thinks we need one; a smart attempt at creating the impression that we take the needs of Indigenous people seriously (without having to do anything much); or (the most likely) an effort to “do something” which emanates from a sense that creating a representative body is the right thing to do, but without the requisite knowledge or the inclination to do it properly.
Indigenous Australians, like all Australians, have a representative body. It’s called Parliament.
Indigenous Australians, like all Australians, have a representative body. It’s called Parliament.
Gee, shabadoo, you sound almost exactly like a certain right-wing trollumnist.
Gee, shabadoo, you sound almost exactly like a certain right-wing trollumnist.
I was thinking what an unusually intelligent conversation this was until shabadoo turned up. Thanks everyone else.
I was thinking what an unusually intelligent conversation this was until shabadoo turned up. Thanks everyone else.
So how can this circle be squared?
And it’s not just government. It’s very hard, as somebody who is concerned about indigenous Australians getting a fair go but with very little direct knowledge on the issues, to know what weight to give to various opinions. Do they actually represent a broader view, or are they just given prominence due to media-savviness?
So how can this circle be squared?
And it’s not just government. It’s very hard, as somebody who is concerned about indigenous Australians getting a fair go but with very little direct knowledge on the issues, to know what weight to give to various opinions. Do they actually represent a broader view, or are they just given prominence due to media-savviness?
Indeed. And are the needs and identities of Indigenous people in Redfern and Ramingining so uniform that a single, appointed representative body can speak for them all?
Indeed. And are the needs and identities of Indigenous people in Redfern and Ramingining so uniform that a single, appointed representative body can speak for them all?
On a lot of issues, clearly not. But there are some issues which are dealt with by the national government at a national level, and if indigenous people are to have a chance of being heard, a more united voice will sometimes be necessary.
Even if what that national voice says is that the issue shouldn’t be dealt with in a uniform manner and that the wildly different views of each individual community need to be respected.
On a lot of issues, clearly not. But there are some issues which are dealt with by the national government at a national level, and if indigenous people are to have a chance of being heard, a more united voice will sometimes be necessary.
Even if what that national voice says is that the issue shouldn’t be dealt with in a uniform manner and that the wildly different views of each individual community need to be respected.
Bot what some indigenous people seem to be asking is, who chose these people? What right do they have to represent me?
I gather from a couple of indigenous friends on Facebook who have posted about and are complaining bitterly.
Bot what some indigenous people seem to be asking is, who chose these people? What right do they have to represent me?
I gather from a couple of indigenous friends on Facebook who have posted about and are complaining bitterly.
Sorry, but I just find this whole discussion very patronising … indigenous Australians will never fully integrate so long as they’re forced to speak through these sorts of bodies.
Sorry, but I just find this whole discussion very patronising … indigenous Australians will never fully integrate so long as they’re forced to speak through these sorts of bodies.
The ABC report mentions a 120 member congress elected by indigenes, presumeably on a similar basis to how ATSIC reps were although that was on a regional basis. That sounds okay to me and maybe Geoff Clarke and Michael Anderson should put their hands up for this annual event. The report isn’t clear on the appointed body other than that it is headed by Tom Calma, again few could quibble with the former social justice commissioner. I also like the name change, dropping the Torres Strait Islands anomaly.
The ABC report mentions a 120 member congress elected by indigenes, presumeably on a similar basis to how ATSIC reps were although that was on a regional basis. That sounds okay to me and maybe Geoff Clarke and Michael Anderson should put their hands up for this annual event. The report isn’t clear on the appointed body other than that it is headed by Tom Calma, again few could quibble with the former social justice commissioner. I also like the name change, dropping the Torres Strait Islands anomaly.
effective service delivery @ 4:
“… complex issues around how and why (some) Indigenous people become legitimate representatives for others”
That is an important point to raise – families in many Top End communities who aren’t “powerful” may not be easily represented – certainly not by members of “powerful families” in their own community.
effective service delivery @ 4:
“… complex issues around how and why (some) Indigenous people become legitimate representatives for others”
That is an important point to raise – families in many Top End communities who aren’t “powerful” may not be easily represented – certainly not by members of “powerful families” in their own community.
Controversially, I think shabadoo may have a point, and it’s because I tend to agree with Effective Service Delivery about the complexity of the concept of indigenous leadership.
So, back to the parliament being the appropriate place for indigenous representation, and just to throw a wild idea out there – why not have each state with an indigenous representatives in the Senate, and have an indigenous peoples ballot to choose that representative? I don’t think you can have a just and representative system for indigenous people, so there is no point pretending it can happen, getting representation in the parliament wont remedy that, but it’s a voice where it matters, and opens the possibility of private members bills and participation in senate committees that would be a more genuine voice than any separate body could ever be.
The Aboriginal Lands Trust {SA} is probably one of the oldest attempts to have an organisation that represents Aboriginal people, the idea of the Trust was really incredibly progressive in it’s time. I’d have to look it up again, but I think the Aboriginal Lands Trust Act dates from the early 1960′s. It seems to function as a “council of elders” type of arrangement, but the problem, as I understand it, knowing someone who has been on the trust, is that it’s very difficult [inappropriate] for an ‘elder’ to cast votes in decisions that impact on people who are not members of his immediate community.
Controversially, I think shabadoo may have a point, and it’s because I tend to agree with Effective Service Delivery about the complexity of the concept of indigenous leadership.
So, back to the parliament being the appropriate place for indigenous representation, and just to throw a wild idea out there – why not have each state with an indigenous representatives in the Senate, and have an indigenous peoples ballot to choose that representative? I don’t think you can have a just and representative system for indigenous people, so there is no point pretending it can happen, getting representation in the parliament wont remedy that, but it’s a voice where it matters, and opens the possibility of private members bills and participation in senate committees that would be a more genuine voice than any separate body could ever be.
The Aboriginal Lands Trust {SA} is probably one of the oldest attempts to have an organisation that represents Aboriginal people, the idea of the Trust was really incredibly progressive in it’s time. I’d have to look it up again, but I think the Aboriginal Lands Trust Act dates from the early 1960′s. It seems to function as a “council of elders” type of arrangement, but the problem, as I understand it, knowing someone who has been on the trust, is that it’s very difficult [inappropriate] for an ‘elder’ to cast votes in decisions that impact on people who are not members of his immediate community.
Saint Furious, funnily enough when I saw shabadoo’s comment that was my response as well.
Although I’d go a little further and say that if it’s possible for a political party to administer a quota to ensure a minimum level of representation for women – including in the lower houses of parliaments – it should be possible to do so for Aboriginal people and Torres Strait Islanders as well. I concede that such a move takes us away from the ‘directly elected by’ proposal, and has implications for who exactly is represented.
That said, I don’t think the problems that have been identified as attendant on the National Congress of Australia’s First Peoples are vastly different from those that are part of all representative bodies, including the Federal Parliament.
Yes, there seems a live concern about people from one part of the country making decisions about another: like the eastern seaboard making decisions about, say, the Kimberley, or perhaps more relevantly, about the Northern Territory (given the difference in status).
Are issues about who is appointed/elected and who chooses really that different from how people are preselected, and who gets a say about that?
John said:
Well, I see nothing here to suggest that this isn’t the result of exactly this kind of process.
Yes, there are some who are discontented with the way things have turned out. I’m pretty sure that if pressed – and not very hard – we could think of sections of the broader community who are unhappy with the character and structure of our parliaments.
Saint Furious, funnily enough when I saw shabadoo’s comment that was my response as well.
Although I’d go a little further and say that if it’s possible for a political party to administer a quota to ensure a minimum level of representation for women – including in the lower houses of parliaments – it should be possible to do so for Aboriginal people and Torres Strait Islanders as well. I concede that such a move takes us away from the ‘directly elected by’ proposal, and has implications for who exactly is represented.
That said, I don’t think the problems that have been identified as attendant on the National Congress of Australia’s First Peoples are vastly different from those that are part of all representative bodies, including the Federal Parliament.
Yes, there seems a live concern about people from one part of the country making decisions about another: like the eastern seaboard making decisions about, say, the Kimberley, or perhaps more relevantly, about the Northern Territory (given the difference in status).
Are issues about who is appointed/elected and who chooses really that different from how people are preselected, and who gets a say about that?
John said:
Well, I see nothing here to suggest that this isn’t the result of exactly this kind of process.
Yes, there are some who are discontented with the way things have turned out. I’m pretty sure that if pressed – and not very hard – we could think of sections of the broader community who are unhappy with the character and structure of our parliaments.
Effective delivery @4 touches on the “foreignness’ of communities that are still strongly influenced by traditional life. Priorities, processes and sense of what is “right” are often quite different to our position. To make it more difficult it can be very hard for an outsider to see what is really going on. My wife had a lot to do with Aborigines, yet, after 8 years on Groote Eylandt she would say:
Where the real power lay also seemed to work differently. Real power didn’t belong to those making most of the speeches at council meetings. It belonged with that old man who never came anywhere near council meetings.
In terms of what might happen if Aborigines are left to to organize themselves my guess is that alliances would build up to the size required to have some influence with the government. So perhaps we might be talking about something like an alliance of Arnhem Land communities rather than a NT wide alliance.
Effective delivery @4 touches on the “foreignness’ of communities that are still strongly influenced by traditional life. Priorities, processes and sense of what is “right” are often quite different to our position. To make it more difficult it can be very hard for an outsider to see what is really going on. My wife had a lot to do with Aborigines, yet, after 8 years on Groote Eylandt she would say:
Where the real power lay also seemed to work differently. Real power didn’t belong to those making most of the speeches at council meetings. It belonged with that old man who never came anywhere near council meetings.
In terms of what might happen if Aborigines are left to to organize themselves my guess is that alliances would build up to the size required to have some influence with the government. So perhaps we might be talking about something like an alliance of Arnhem Land communities rather than a NT wide alliance.
What excellent idea. We could divide the NT into a Northern area, a Central area and perhaps one each for the Tiwi islands and Groote Eylandt.
What excellent idea. We could divide the NT into a Northern area, a Central area and perhaps one each for the Tiwi islands and Groote Eylandt.
Jaques @20: The Groote Eylandt land council was the sort of thing that I had in mind. It split from the Northern Land council because of lack of satisfaction with the way it was representing their interests. My impression on a recent visit was that it was working OK but I cannot say this with authority.
I am not sure how effectively the other councils are working and how well they and the Groote council are cooperating when they have shared concerns. Also not sure how well they represent people who have no strong ties with traditional groups.
Jaques @20: The Groote Eylandt land council was the sort of thing that I had in mind. It split from the Northern Land council because of lack of satisfaction with the way it was representing their interests. My impression on a recent visit was that it was working OK but I cannot say this with authority.
I am not sure how effectively the other councils are working and how well they and the Groote council are cooperating when they have shared concerns. Also not sure how well they represent people who have no strong ties with traditional groups.
Caution needs to be applied in terms of looking at the Land Councils as a possible model for representative bodies. The Land councils are set up to represent the iterests of Traditional Owners in relation to matters of land. A representative body that is looking at a whole other raft of issues (health, education, intergenerational knowledge transmission etc etc) needs to find ways to represent people that is not solely based on affiliation with land (though undoubtedly there would be overlap). Again this echoes ESD’s point about the complexity of local aboriginal politics and the need to work with what is there, not what we would like to see or feel confortable relating to. John’s point about where the power really lies is what we need to spend more institutional effort on finding out about and working with respectfully.
Caution needs to be applied in terms of looking at the Land Councils as a possible model for representative bodies. The Land councils are set up to represent the iterests of Traditional Owners in relation to matters of land. A representative body that is looking at a whole other raft of issues (health, education, intergenerational knowledge transmission etc etc) needs to find ways to represent people that is not solely based on affiliation with land (though undoubtedly there would be overlap). Again this echoes ESD’s point about the complexity of local aboriginal politics and the need to work with what is there, not what we would like to see or feel confortable relating to. John’s point about where the power really lies is what we need to spend more institutional effort on finding out about and working with respectfully.
Quite right Jester. The Groote Eylandt land council may be a good intermediary between the government and the Groote Eylandt clans because of shared language, over 40 yrs experience of Groote Eylandters managing mining royalties and dealing with Eylandt wide issues. However, it doesn’t represent all the people of Aboriginal descent living on Groote or people from Groote living in Darwin or other places outside of Groote.
I would have said that the traditional Groote people as I knew them in the 1970′s did need special lines of communication to the government and some forms of special treatment. However, I didn’t feel the same about the people of mixed descent who lived in the mining town at that time. They were all competent people who didn’t need special treatment.
Perhaps we should ask what we are trying to achieve by the new indigenous representation arrangements and who should be part of these arrangements? It is also worth asking whether some groups and issues should be handled as part of general multi-cultural policies and/or our general treatment of issues such as poverty, literacy and remoteness?
Think about the multi-cultural framework. Many subsections of our society have associations, councils etc. that they set up themselves in ways that suit themselves to preserve aspects of their culture, deal with subsection specific issues and lobby the government. Governments often provide grants for these organizations if they are convinced that some project has support. I suspect that this may work much better than ATSIC equivalents for some urban Aborigines and those no longer closely linked to tradition.
Quite right Jester. The Groote Eylandt land council may be a good intermediary between the government and the Groote Eylandt clans because of shared language, over 40 yrs experience of Groote Eylandters managing mining royalties and dealing with Eylandt wide issues. However, it doesn’t represent all the people of Aboriginal descent living on Groote or people from Groote living in Darwin or other places outside of Groote.
I would have said that the traditional Groote people as I knew them in the 1970′s did need special lines of communication to the government and some forms of special treatment. However, I didn’t feel the same about the people of mixed descent who lived in the mining town at that time. They were all competent people who didn’t need special treatment.
Perhaps we should ask what we are trying to achieve by the new indigenous representation arrangements and who should be part of these arrangements? It is also worth asking whether some groups and issues should be handled as part of general multi-cultural policies and/or our general treatment of issues such as poverty, literacy and remoteness?
Think about the multi-cultural framework. Many subsections of our society have associations, councils etc. that they set up themselves in ways that suit themselves to preserve aspects of their culture, deal with subsection specific issues and lobby the government. Governments often provide grants for these organizations if they are convinced that some project has support. I suspect that this may work much better than ATSIC equivalents for some urban Aborigines and those no longer closely linked to tradition.
I’d agree in theory.
However, as a matter of practical politics I’d suggest that the levers of power and influence in contemporary Australian politics are as they are, and it is a long term project to try and change them. Therefore, if indigenous people want a better deal from the federal government, figuring out how better to work those existing levers of power and influence could potentially lead to much better outcomes.
I’d agree in theory.
However, as a matter of practical politics I’d suggest that the levers of power and influence in contemporary Australian politics are as they are, and it is a long term project to try and change them. Therefore, if indigenous people want a better deal from the federal government, figuring out how better to work those existing levers of power and influence could potentially lead to much better outcomes.
Robert, I also agree with you “in theory”, however the reality is much more (as seems to be my catchphrase) “complex”. In many cases using the abstract notion of a “better deal from the government” I think is just too nebulous for the purposes of building any representative body. As I think I said earlier a critical question is “representing/ organising for what?”. My experience is that Indigenous knowledge production takes place around people (with their particular identities that emanate and are built from a range of sources) doing life with each other in relation to concrete issues/things in the world. As a result systems of there are no “pre-set” decision making structures, the context determines the decision makers (which requires active and ongoing negotiation). This is very different to the system that we have where the decision makers are pre-determined and the context/issue is secondary (i.e. our political system is set up like this). This is why we have issues of incommensurability. The negotiation of decision making as a central facet of knowledge production (as in the Indigenous case) almost precludes the formation of functional working relationships with a system that understands knowledge to be something entirely different. There are ways through it, but it requires really looking at the ontologies, and emergent epistemologies of the systems to find the way. Sadly, this is something that as a scientific society we will just never do.
Robert, I also agree with you “in theory”, however the reality is much more (as seems to be my catchphrase) “complex”. In many cases using the abstract notion of a “better deal from the government” I think is just too nebulous for the purposes of building any representative body. As I think I said earlier a critical question is “representing/ organising for what?”. My experience is that Indigenous knowledge production takes place around people (with their particular identities that emanate and are built from a range of sources) doing life with each other in relation to concrete issues/things in the world. As a result systems of there are no “pre-set” decision making structures, the context determines the decision makers (which requires active and ongoing negotiation). This is very different to the system that we have where the decision makers are pre-determined and the context/issue is secondary (i.e. our political system is set up like this). This is why we have issues of incommensurability. The negotiation of decision making as a central facet of knowledge production (as in the Indigenous case) almost precludes the formation of functional working relationships with a system that understands knowledge to be something entirely different. There are ways through it, but it requires really looking at the ontologies, and emergent epistemologies of the systems to find the way. Sadly, this is something that as a scientific society we will just never do.
Sorry all, this: “As a result systems of there are..” should read “As a result there are…” I dunno what those systems were going to be!
Sorry all, this: “As a result systems of there are..” should read “As a result there are…” I dunno what those systems were going to be!
I recall reading in the 1970′s of how northern Australian indigenous people referred to Canberra/Darwin, other capital cities as ‘government country’ which may be a simplistic way of saying that things are done strangely and differently to our/their mob. By implication this suggests that the indigenous congress will have a tough job in consensus building.
I recall reading in the 1970′s of how northern Australian indigenous people referred to Canberra/Darwin, other capital cities as ‘government country’ which may be a simplistic way of saying that things are done strangely and differently to our/their mob. By implication this suggests that the indigenous congress will have a tough job in consensus building.
As an Aboriginal man suporting the Congress I simply say that the Congress will represent its membership. No different to ACTU or the National Farmers Federation that speaks on behalf of its members and not every farmer. While I welcome your interest and the debate you are having here in cyberspace – this is not appropriate or good enough for my family in remote QLD. I want and we need a forum and a mechanism to have these debates amongst our peoples and that is part of what the Congress will deliver.
As an Aboriginal man suporting the Congress I simply say that the Congress will represent its membership. No different to ACTU or the National Farmers Federation that speaks on behalf of its members and not every farmer. While I welcome your interest and the debate you are having here in cyberspace – this is not appropriate or good enough for my family in remote QLD. I want and we need a forum and a mechanism to have these debates amongst our peoples and that is part of what the Congress will deliver.
My agenda @ 28, your position of supporting the Congress and the means by which its representatives are chosen is one thing, but it is another to conflate this to the statement that “the Congress will represent its membership”. What I have tried to point out is that representation is inextricably linked with legitimacy. As you point out the an ACTU member might disagree with the hierarchy, but this is very different from the ACTU member saying that the ACTU has no right to represent them . People who become members of organizations respect (at least we need to assume this to be the case) the processes through which the representatives are chosen. This is the same with our parliamentary democracy. We might not like who gets elected but by voting we accept the system as it works. this does not appear to be the case in relation to the Congress.
Now it also needs to be pointed out that this does not mean that the Congress can’t do a good job. It also does not mean that people are not allowed to feel that it “represents” them. But this is not what I am talking about; legitimate representation and effectiveness are different things. In the places where I work I find it difficult to believe that processes have yet been devised that would effectively allow Indigenous people to see those people on the National Congress as their legitimate representatives (in the sense that they would believe that their decisions somehow can be said to be made legitimately on their behalf). But as I said earlier I am not sure that there are any easy ways to do this and for this reason I think the Congress it not so much about “representation” as it is about being seen to have a national level body that can be seen to advocating on behalf of a group who don’t have a lot of power (though I will leave alone the debate about why this might be the case). Again this is not about whether the Congress can do a good job or not.
My agenda @ 28, your position of supporting the Congress and the means by which its representatives are chosen is one thing, but it is another to conflate this to the statement that “the Congress will represent its membership”. What I have tried to point out is that representation is inextricably linked with legitimacy. As you point out the an ACTU member might disagree with the hierarchy, but this is very different from the ACTU member saying that the ACTU has no right to represent them . People who become members of organizations respect (at least we need to assume this to be the case) the processes through which the representatives are chosen. This is the same with our parliamentary democracy. We might not like who gets elected but by voting we accept the system as it works. this does not appear to be the case in relation to the Congress.
Now it also needs to be pointed out that this does not mean that the Congress can’t do a good job. It also does not mean that people are not allowed to feel that it “represents” them. But this is not what I am talking about; legitimate representation and effectiveness are different things. In the places where I work I find it difficult to believe that processes have yet been devised that would effectively allow Indigenous people to see those people on the National Congress as their legitimate representatives (in the sense that they would believe that their decisions somehow can be said to be made legitimately on their behalf). But as I said earlier I am not sure that there are any easy ways to do this and for this reason I think the Congress it not so much about “representation” as it is about being seen to have a national level body that can be seen to advocating on behalf of a group who don’t have a lot of power (though I will leave alone the debate about why this might be the case). Again this is not about whether the Congress can do a good job or not.