|
Cabinet was mislead on NIC support
Issue 68 - 10 Nov 2004
NATIONAL: John Howard’s federal cabinet was mislead when it was told that one of the nation’s most influential Aboriginal leaders supported the government’s proposal for a hand-picked Aboriginal advisory board.
A cabinet-in-confidence briefing paper dated April 7, 2004 - a copy of which has been obtained by NIT - claimed that Cape York Aboriginal leader Noel Pearson made “private proposals” to the government for an appointed, rather than elected, Indigenous body to replace ATSIC.
Just over a week later, the government announced it was abolishing ATSIC - the nation’s peak democratically-elected Indigenous body - and replacing it with the hand-picked National Indigenous Council (NIC).
Opposition to the proposal was swift and widespread - most Indigenous leaders lambasted the idea of Aboriginal people no longer being allowed to elect their own leaders.
Mr Pearson was one of the most strident critics. On April 15, Mr Pearson told ABC TV’s 7:30 Report that the government policy was a “step backwards” and said the NIC would be viewed as a “kitchen cabinet”.
But the cabinet document portrayed Mr Pearson’s views very differently.
The document read: “...it is proposed that the ATSIC Board be abolished and replaced with a National Indigenous Council (the Council).
“The role of the Council would be to advise the government on indigenous policy. Consistent with public comments by the former chair of ATSIC, Ms Lowitja O’Donoghue, and private proposals from Mr Noel Pearson, it is proposed that the Council be appointed, not elected, and include people selected on the basis of their experience and expertise in particular aspects of indigenous affairs (for example health, education, law, employment, community affairs).”
Mr Pearson told NIT his views had been completely misrepresented to cabinet.
“I did not - and do not - support a non-elected structure,” Mr Pearson said.
Minister for Indigenous Affairs, Amanda Vanstone declined to comment.
“The government doesn’t respond to the contents of confidential material leaked by someone with a personal axe to grind,” she said.
“Private discussions are just that - private - and the government will maintain the privacy of those discussions.”
Mr Pearson’s views on an appointed Aboriginal body, while widely reported by Australian media as unfavourable, were also outlined in a paper he wrote earlier this year for the Cape York Institute for Policy and Leadership, entitled Notes On Reforming National And Regional Indigenous Governance Structures.
“As you can see from the first sentence in the text I did not, and do not, support a non-elected structure,” Mr Pearson said.
That sentence reads: “The Federal Government’s decision to abolish ATSIC was correct but its decision to rule out future election of Indigenous representatives and to mainstream all Indigenous services is wrong...”
“I actually proposed that the Chairperson should be elected and other members appointed by the Chairperson and the federal government along the lines of the United States Cabinet model,” Mr Pearson said.
“I spoke with federal government bureaucrats about my concept. I also outlined my ideas to the federal Opposition at meetings. My ideas were not taken up by either side.
“The federal Opposition took to the election a broad representative structure, whilst I understand the federal government is still committed to an appointed advisory council.
“I still remain committed to my proposal that there should be an election of the Chair of the national body.”
 
|