Page 1413 - Week 05 - Tuesday, 6 May 2008
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
elected to this place. I understand that it was the position of his own party federally, which he may disagree with, but it was his own party’s position in 2004 to abolish ATSIC. The Labor Party policy in 2004 was to abolish ATSIC and this, unlike most of Mr Latham’s policies, I think was an appropriate position.
That organisation—and this would be an understatement—had become controversial and was not advancing in the interests of the Indigenous community. I am not going to be all scathing and all critical because I think there was good intent. At times, through my good friend Aden Ridgeway, I had several meetings with Geoff Clark. Certainly from those discussions I did not consider him to be the villain that he has been painted in the national media. But the administration of that body is another issue and I think that there were fundamental failings evident that really pointed to the fact that it no longer had a future to operate the way it was.
I acknowledge at the outset of my remarks that this bill will create, on my understanding, something that will be quite different from ATSIC. If, like ATSIC, the ACT body was to have fiscal powers or the ability to allocate funds to the Indigenous community, I would, of course, have some serious issues with this legislation. Part of the problem that I observed with ATSIC was their apparent failure to handle their fiscal responsibilities. I do not think, however, that this is the appropriate forum to rehash the problems of economic management that that organisation faced. Suffice it to say that comprehensively it is government departments that are probably best able to distribute funding in this sort of context.
I do not have a problem with the creation of a body that will receive and pass on views of the community to the minister or propose new programs for the government’s consideration. I would have some reservations about the amendment Dr Foskey proposes if it was going to create an environment in which suddenly this body was speaking in public about all manner of things. But I understand from discussions with my office and the Chief Minister’s office that they are unlikely to have an issue with this amendment, and my only concern is to ensure that advisory bodies are there to provide advice, not to compete and engage in high level public debate. I think that is more appropriately handled by other organisations.
I am conscious of the need to ensure that the problems experienced by ATSIC—and these are widely acknowledged—are not repeated. I would welcome from the Chief Minister some more detail on how the new body is to be funded—there has been some mention of that this morning—because I am conscious, and I always am, of the need to ensure that public monies are expended prudently and wisely.
Whilst I support the principle of an elected body, if it is to be funded by government, then a suitable level of financial accountability or control is needed. I reiterate the concerns about ATSIC. I note that Mr Seselja also picked up the comments of Tony Mundine, the prominent Indigenous leader and former ALP president. Recently, in response to suggestions arising from the 2020 Summit that the federal government should re-establish an ATSIC-style body, he said:
We seem to be getting on OK without it … we need to be spending the money where the money needs to be spent, not on a whole bunch of people flying business class around Australia to meetings.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .