The Prime Minister, John Howard, will have a difficult time making changes to the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission following allegations of financial irregularities against various state Aboriginal Legal Services, and a damning report by the Commonwealth Ombudsman.
At present the body has 17 elected members and 2 appointed by the Minister. The Minister can appoint to chair from among them. But the amendments to remove the ministerial appointments to make it an all-elected body which elects its own chair come into force on July 1 and take practical effect from the first ATSIC election after that. They are, to use the words of the former Prime Minister, L-A-W law.
Mr Howard, and his Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, John Herron, have announced that want to continue to appoint the chair. They also want an overriding ministerial capacity to suspend the board and appoint an administrator if the Minister thinks the board is being mismanaged and a special audit process for ATSIC spending. To achieve the first two the Government must get amendments through the Parliament, and in the face of a hostile Senate some compromise will be needed.
Aboriginal Social Justice Commissioner Mick Dodson asserts that the crackdown is patronising and a step back in time. He, like the Opposition spokesperson on Aboriginal affairs, Daryl Melham, supports greater accountability but says the Government’s proposals are an assertion that “”non-Aboriginal people are always going to know what’s best for Aboriginal people and Aboriginal people have to do what they’re told. It’s good old mission-days mentality.”
Clearly no body can misuse taxpayers’ funds and all statutory bodies should be accountable for their spending. The question is how should this happen without diluting the worthy aims of Aboriginal self-determination.
The Government can and should appoint a special auditor to investigate the financial dealings of all indigenous groups that received funding from ATSIC. Also, having an administrator take over from an elected body that is mismanaging is a fairly standard model in local government. The question remains, however, of who should appoint the administrator and what kind of evidence is required before an administrator is appointed. Sometimes it is better to put that in the hands of ministerial discretion lest it get bogged down in legal and bureaucratic processes that defeat the purpose of having an administrator.
But the question of appointing the chair of ATSIC is different. Aboriginal people, in the context of an Australian federation, should have self-determination. The comparison with local government is an apt one. The administration of Aboriginal affairs has been evolving with ever increasing amounts of Aboriginal self-determination, and should not go backwards. It will never be perfect; what administration is. Recent evidence of financial irregularity should be dealt with on that level … with auditors and the ultimate safeguard of putting in an administrator.
But the Aboriginal community can only feel responsible for ATSIC’s conduct and ATSIC can only feel accountable to the Aboriginal community if it is totally elected.