Sign In
0 Items (
Search
Comments (14)
The arguments for and against an acknowledgment of pre-colonial Aboriginal presence in Australia and the insertion of an indigenous voice into the Constitution, and the referendum this will require, are the main issues of the day in Australian politics. The former is non-controversial, long overdue, and by all accounts supported by most Australians. By contrast, the latter is highly controversial and has raised raw emotional comments. It is marred by lack of information on its composition, function, cost, likely effectiveness and permanent existence regardless of future results. The two changes are combined into a single constitutional amendment and one referendum question. Voters at the referendum need to realise that there are in fact two overlapping proposals which cannot be voted for independently.
This essay appears in our Voice online-only edition.
Subscribers and non-subscribers alike can download
the entire August issue by clicking this link
Several indigenous agencies whose purpose is to improve the status of indigenous people by influencing or advising the government already exist and are generously funded by the government. Why, then, is a new organisation being proposed and why cannot the functions set out in the proposed constitutional amendment be undertaken by the existing bodies? In other words, is the Voice really necessary?
The agency that appears to overlap most with the Voice is the National Indigenous Australians Agency (NIAA), established in 2019 by executive order signed by the Governor-General. The order-in-council specifies the following functions:
1/ to lead and coordinate Commonwealth policy development, program design and implementation and service delivery for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people;
2/ to provide advice to the Prime Minister and the Minister for Indigenous Australians on whole-of-government priorities for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people;
iii. to lead and coordinate the development and implementation of Australia’s Closing the Gap targets in partnership with Indigenous Australians;
3/ to lead Commonwealth activities to promote reconciliation;
4/ to build and maintain effective partnerships with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, state and territory governments and other relevant stakeholders to inform whole-of-government priorities for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, and enable policies, programs and services to be tailored to the unique needs of communities;
5/ to design, consult on and coordinate the delivery of community development employment projects;
vii. to analyse and monitor the effectiveness of programs and services for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, including programs and services delivered by bodies other than the Agency;
viii. to coordinate Indigenous portfolio agencies and advance a whole-of-government approach to improving the lives of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people; and
6/ to undertake other tasks the Prime Minister and the Minister require from time to time.
The NIAA website reinterprets the above functions. It defines its role as:
…to assist the Australian Government to achieve its objectives in improving the lives of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples, focusing on place, working in partnership and effectively delivering programs … We lead and influence change across government to ensure Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples have a say in the decisions that affect them … The NIAA is committed to implementing the Australian Government’s policies and programs to improve the lives of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. The NIAA works to influence policy across the entire Australian Government. As an Executive Agency within the Prime Minister and Cabinet portfolio, the NIAA is well placed to coordinate across the Commonwealth.
These functions overlap substantially with those in the proposed constitutional amendment.
The NIAA reports to the Federal Minister for Indigenous Australians, Linda Burney. The NIAA website refers extensively to the Voice and the referendum, and the Indigenous Voice Co-design Process Final Report by Marcia Langton and Tom Calma acknowledges the support of the NIAA in the formation of the Voice. The minister must know that the aims of the Voice and the NIAA overlap, but it appears that the potential for duplication or waste if the NIAA continues after creation of the Voice, or why a body similar to others already in existence is being inserted into the Constitution, has been largely ignored.
In addition, the NIAA’s annual report does not contain solid evidence that the social and economic problems of indigenous people are improving, and the project aims reported as having been achieved relate mainly to administrative functions. It therefore remains an exercise in hope. This is perhaps understandable given the relatively short period since the NIAA was established, but progress by one Aboriginal body is likely to be mimicked by a broadly similar agency.
The questions asked here reflect a similar comment by Rowan Dean on Sky News on March 12 this year. His claim that the NIAA could act as a Voice was examined by RMIT University Factlab. RMIT concluded that the claim was false, based on: (a) the NIAA is accountable to government, whereas the Voice would be independent; (b) the Voice will advise both the government and the Executive, whereas the NIAA advises only the Prime Minister and the Minister for Indigenous Affairs; (c) the NIAA is not truly an Aboriginal body, there being a non-Aboriginal majority (78 per cent) on the staff, whereas the Voice will have only Aboriginal representatives and therefore be truly Aboriginal; (d) the existence of the Voice will be guaranteed by virtue of its definition in the Constitution, whereas the NIAA can be abolished by another order-in-council.
These points are correct as stated, but do not exclude the possibility that the legal basis of the NIAA (the executive order) can be varied. The relevance of the analysis is also questionable. Some of the stated differences simply repeat the concerns many have about the Voice, such as advising the executive and the permanence of the body in the Constitution. Furthermore, point (c) is invalid as it confuses representation with administration. Surely the Voice will have at least a few non-Aboriginal employees? Thus Factlab missed the point: the NIAA already has Voice-like functions and the creation of the Voice in addition to an unamended NIAA would lead to unwieldy duplication of effort and substantial additional cost.
The National Aboriginal Community Controlled Health Organisation (NACCHO) is another Aboriginal body dedicated to improvement in Aboriginal health and welfare, in this case with emphasis on health. This agency has been funded by central government since 1997. The website states:
The National Aboriginal Community Controlled Health Organisation (NACCHO) is the national leadership body for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander health in Australia. NACCHO provides advice and guidance to the Australian Government on policy and budget matters and advocates for community-developed solutions that contribute to the quality of life and improved health outcomes for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people.
The published NIAA budget for 2022-23 from the federal government was $2.1 billion but the 2022 annual report states that $1.1 billion was also received from private sources. The main NACCHO funder remains the Department of Health: $32,162,185 in 2021-22 (annual report). The current government has promised a further $111 million. NACCHO’s funding therefore is lower than the NIAA’s, but its website is impressive and gives ground for believing that it could have significant effects on Aboriginal health. Indeed, Professor Fiona Stanley recently credited NACCHO with achieving a six-fold reduction in COVID-19 infection rates in Aboriginal communities during the pandemic compared to non-Aboriginal Australians. She declared that this indicates “proof” that the Voice will be successful in its aims. However, to claim that positive results from a pre-Voice era are proof the Voice will be successful is illogical, and in any case the result was due to co-operative effort between central government and many Aboriginal agencies co-ordinated by NACCHO. One might legitimately conclude from this example that there is no need for a Voice, at least as far as Aboriginal health is concerned.
But the question remains whether this success applies to Aboriginal health generally, and poor performance in the Closing the Gap projects suggests that it does not. Nevertheless, Burney cited the poor results in Closing the Gap as a reason for the Voice. Are we to believe that positive results from the fight against COVID-19 and negative results in Closing the Gap both point to a successful Voice?
It might be possible to extract some truth from this confusion if Voice supporters had explained how the benefits of the Voice will be obtained, but they have not. Aboriginal spokespersons blame present failures on lack of understanding of indigenous culture by the wider Australian community and the involvement of incompetent or culturally ignorant Canberra-based bureaucrats. Such opinions ignore the active role, in the NACCHO example above, of central government in successfully engaging indigenous communities by stimulating, funding and co-ordinating projects. It does not appear to be the result of underfunding, as the NIAA budget shows.
Apart from Professor Stanley’s comments, there has been little mention of existing Aboriginal agencies, particularly the NIAA, during the referendum debate. The impression one obtains on detailed perusal of the various websites and annual reports is that the indigenous industry (if one can call it that) is bloated, riddled with duplication of effort and expenditure and lack of progress, and therefore in urgent need of review. The annual reports are visually appealing but exude self-justification and are hard to assess because of excessive detail. There need be no doubt about the sincerity of the personnel involved or the justice of their cause, but adding a further body to the mix is likely to exacerbate the situation.
If the referendum result is positive I suggest that the Voice be formed by amalgamation with the NIAA and NACCHO, using their current webs of contacts, information flow, staffing and funding as described in their annual reports. If the referendum fails, then an amalgamation of the NIAA and NACCHO represents an option for the government to create a Voice-like body outside the Constitution. I am under no illusions that this option will be popular with the proponents of a Voice as described in the Langton–Calma report. They assume the referendum will pass, but current polls suggest it may not, hence a back-up plan will be required.
In summary, the example of existing indigenous agencies suggests that the Voice proposed in the referendum may be redundant. The suggestion proposed here is that whether the Voice passes or fails, the relationship between the NIAA, NACCHO and a Voice should be reviewed to avoid duplication of effort and wasteful government expenditure, and to increase the probability of Aboriginal progress.
Alasdair Millar is a retired physician and clinical pharmacologist who lives in Western Australia
I note the NIAA is to help the government promote ‘reconciliation’. Could someone explaining what this trope means? Most Aborigines appear fully reconciled to the modern world and making full use of mobile phones, the roads and wheels thereon. Most Australians, and indeed all government bodies, seem fully reconciled to Aborigines, accepting them as citizens and letting them ‘do their own thing’ even if it involves abuse of children and women, then giving ‘slap on wrist’ penalties for those crimes. That’s more than reconciled, that’s bending over backwards accommodation.
Daffy, your comment on reconcilliation hits the nail squarely. My observation, largely from experience, is that most of us are getting on successfully with life without thoughts of reconciliation. Those pushing the reconciliation barrow are a vociferous minority who must have a perenial problem or bugaboo to weigh the majority of us down with immagined grievance.
I wouldn’t count on Minister Burney knowing anything thing much, let alone about overlap, Alasdair, maybe like Albanese she hasn’t felt the need to read any of the details. How about doing her job (a big ask) and fixing health problems NOW which is possible with all the money sloshing around for aborigines, a capable Minister, plus some self responsibility from individuals and elders in remote communities.
This is just a trojan horse for power and furthering the aboriginal industry gravy train, and it’s already been stated that all the existing organisations like NIAA will remain. ATSIC, ATSIC ATSIC on steroids.
A very good point, Alasdair, and I was unaware what NIAA actually does, or is supposed to be doing. In fact I only learned of NIAA’s existence recently, because that is where the 14 documents bundled together with the Uluru Statement released via FOI came from. Regarding NACCHO, I had no idea of its existence till I read your article! If I had ever heard of it, I would have assumed it was an item of food served in a Mexican restaurant!
*
I don’t know why it is assumed that most Australians would be happy with an addition to the Constitution that specifically recognizes Aboriginal people. No other race or class of Australian citizens are to be given that status. It will not close any gaps, but it will advance the cause of the “First People” seeking acknowledgement of their unceded sovereignty!
“Why, then, is a new organisation being proposed and why cannot the functions set out in the proposed constitutional amendment be undertaken by the existing bodies?” Because the activists running the Voice need new sinecures [that will depend for their longevity on never closing the Gap]? That’s already started eg the final report of the referendum council, of which the Uluru Statement is page 1, says: “Voice to Parliament … It was also suggested that the body could represent Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples internationally.” Foreign Minister Wong hasn’t waited for the referendum. She appointed Mr Justin Mohamed as Australia’s inaugural Ambassador for First Nations People in March. He is supported by $2 million in the current NIAA budget – “to take Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander perspectives and experiences to the world”. It sounds like a comfy billet for the lucky new ambassador who may not even have to visit the remote communities,
I wonder if the Ambassador, clutching the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, has been advocating “self determination” for the Indigenous peoples on West Irian, New Caledonia, Rabaul etc. Is this what an “Indigenous foreign policy” would look like?
The acknowledgement of a pre-colonial aboriginal presence in Australia, “in the constitution”, is very much a matter for debate, or atleast it should be. The constitution is about the division of power between the commonwealth government and the states and the establishment of a federal legislature, government and judiciary. It is a document that dilineates or demarcates power. It is not an appropriate document to insert mothering clauses to make certain groups feel needed, nor is it some sort of anthropological or historical text. The fact that the conservatives often say they are prepared to support such an amendment or preamble just goes to show how desperate they are not to offend the bleeding hearts and Aborigines.
I couldn’t agree more. There is no reference to any racial/ethnic/cultural groups in the 1901 Constitution, only “subjects of the Queen and people of the Commonwealth”.
Quite right, Occidental. There are a great many organisations in existence to help Australians of Aboriginal descent, especially in remote areas, but the Voice is not and never has been about duplicating or taking over these organisations. As The Uluru Statement from the Heart sets out clearly, the Voice is the pathway to a separate joint governing entity to achieve treaty, land hand-backs, and reparations.
Occidental: “The fact that the conservatives often say they are prepared to support such an amendment or preamble just goes to show how desperate they are not to offend the bleeding hearts and Aborigines.” I don’t think that preparedness to support a preamble noting the prior existence of an indigenous population is clearly a sign of desperation to not offend. In most cases it would be seen simply as a reasonable connection to historical fact. But that’s not what is on offer in the referendum, so perhaps the reasons for support are irrelevant. Whether it is reasonable to place it in the Constitution at either as a preamble or at the end in the proposed S.129, as an item in its own right, is a cogent question. My view is that the Constitution is best left alone until a change that demands it (such as, say, becoming a Republic) arises. The Voice does not qualify as such a reason, in my view. Mr Rudd’s apology was an implicit recognition.
A Yes will legitimise a rewrite of the Constitution, be afraid.
Also, on Facebook made a comment: ‘The issue: Universities have been compromised. They should be the vestige of original thought, sadly no more. Degrees should represent an intellectual representation of less than 5% of the population to have any meaning.’ Did not meet their guidelines, again be afraid.
An even more telling comparison than NACCHO is the Coalition of Peaks (coalitionofpeaks.org.au) which describes itself as “a representative body of more than 80 ATSI community-controlled peak organisations and members” which include not only NACCHO but also equivalent national peak advocacy bodies like the National Native Title Council, National ATSI Legal Services and others, most of which are also directly government funded.
Perhaps even more relevant is the officially recognised central role of the Coalition in the COAG Closing the Gap process as formalised in the 2020 National Agreement. That document identifies “four priority reforms”, the first of which is “formal partnerships and shared decision-making”. Hence the Coalition’s pivotal role as co-chair of the COAG Closing the Gap process.
An obvious question therefore is whether The Voice would displace the Coalition in this role. Logically this should happen but the Coalition has been a member of Canberra’s Referendum Working Group which formulated eight voice “Design Principles” since adopted and espoused by the government. Most of these are platitudes (the voice will be independent, representative, accountable etc etc) but one is clearly designed to protect the role of the Coalition viz. “The voice will work alongside existing organisations…(and) respect their work”.
So the duplication and cost escalation will continue IF the voice ever eventuates. The voice will in fact be superimposed on the existing vested interest architecture of the Coalition, NACCHO, National Native Title Council, and all the other government funded national Indigenous lobby organisations.
Vagan many thanks. I had a terrible feeling when writing my article that it was inevitable there were other bodies that would also overlap with a voice! So your response simply increases one’s concerns.