Page 1909 - Week 06 - Tuesday, 6 June 2017
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
I want to briefly speak to each of these matters and highlight some of the issues of concern. In the first instance, although the language of the object of the act is to be amended, we have come to understand that many of the amendments are, in fact, of a deficit nature. They are designed to compensate for the previous dysfunction of past elected bodies and are neither aspirational nor about good practice. This comes as a result of the fact that the elected body is not and never has been in the past truly representative of the community. In fact, less than 10 per cent of eligible people vote during the elections for the elected body, and very few members of the community have turned up to hearings or forums. There have been many instances where elected body meetings could not be held, a quorum was not reached for some meetings or full membership was not achieved.
Some of the amendments, such as changing the public hearings held to review and examine the annual reports to only two per term, are a result of this dysfunction. A truly aspirational and good practice model would require these public hearings to be held each year. How can the elected body be truly feeding concerns back to the government about its services and products if the elected body fails to hold public hearings for that year? This type of deficit approach will continue to hamper the workings of the elected body being seen to be truly representative of the community.
Please understand, members, I consider it very important for the elected body to hold consultations with the public on a wide range of issues, as enshrined in the amendments. But the amendments in section 8 to the function of the elected body appear to limit what the elected body may inquire into and consult on. The Janke report made it very clear that the elected body was perceived by the Indigenous community as an extension and an arm of the government. By reducing its functions and limiting what the elected body may formally conduct inquiries into and consult on to include only programs and services of the government, this perception will not change. Limiting the scope of the elected body to cover issues only of government programs and services and issues as directed by the minister will further cement this perception in the minds of the community.
There seems to be no ability under the amendments for the elected body to bring to the attention of the relevant ministers or their directorates broader issues as they affect the community. It would appear that the elected body, as defined by the amendments to its functions, will be acting at too high a level and will continue to fail to meet the basic criticism levelled at it in the Janke report and by the community—the failure to be truly consultative. What is being done to give a voice to the community on matters that are important to them? Consultation in both directions is important for a number of reasons, most importantly to make sure that the one-way direction from the respective minister or the government to the community does not just become a tick-in-the-box exercise but ensures that the community can raise matters about the day-to-day practical and personal issues that affect them.
The amendments to the functions of the elected body act as they are written beg the question: what is the purpose of the elected body? Is it only to be a conduit between the government and the Indigenous community on systemic and whole-of-government
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video