This article first appeared in The Australian, 6 October 2009

A people that does not trust itself to vote is a people doomed

Hon. Dr Gary Johns

Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission model for an indigenous congress is a chamber of peak associations and trusted insiders. It is not a directly elected chamber. The puzzle of the model and the government's entertainment of it is, why the retreat from democracy?

Aborigines established their own representative bodies a long time ago, William Cooper's Australian Aborigines League in 1936 and the Federal Council for Aboriginal Advancement in 1958. They barely had a penny, but they had integrity that stemmed from membership. By contrast, in 2009 HREOC wants to establish a permanent national representative body as a private company limited, by guarantee 'free from government influence/control'. To achieve this it seeks $250 million of government funding. I wonder what Cooper, sitting at his kitchen table in Melbourne's Footscray, would make of it.

The national representative body would comprise a national executive, a national congress, an ethics council and an administrative/executive support unit. The national congress would consist of 128 delegates with voting rights, drawn from three chambers, 40 from national peak bodies, 40 from sectoral bodies, researchers and experts, and 40 selected on merit and appointed by the national executive.

This is an extraordinary collection. It is a self-appointed policy elite unconstrained by the common sense of the Abrigines, who have no voting rights. It also incorporates a cunning start-up phase. The HREOC steering committee, consisting of Aboriginal politicians Mick Dodson and Lowitja O'Donoghue and a handful of HREOC acolytes who advocate a treaty 'between Australia's First Peoples and the Australian government', will have its term extended to coincide with the commencement of the body's co-chairpersons. In other words, the indigenous congress will be an oligarchy, carefully vetted for its credentials. As unrepresentative of indigenous society as, say, the ACTU, the Australian Council of Social Service and the Australia Institute are of Australian society. This is all about maintaining the old infrastructure of self-determination.

The model is confirmation that in HREOC's eyes Aboriginal society is no more than a collection of government funded associations: land councils and service providers. Increasingly, though, the service providers are under pressure to compete with mainstream providers, so their rationale has shifted. Many started as political associations but are now running a business, albeit in the welfare sector. The HREOC model is seriously flawed.

Either this is a peak bodies' forum or it is a representative body. If it is a peak bodies' forum, it should fund itself. If it is a representative body it must allow for direct election of delegates. Where is the vote for Aborigines, or members who want to join? The HREOC proposal is fundamentally pessimistic about giving Aboriginal people the freedom to determine its own voice. A people that does not trust itself to vote is a people doomed.

Of course, the Labor and Liberal parties and the Nationals are propped up by public financial support and are governed by a professional cadre, but they maintain the essence of association: the election of office bearers by the membership and the payment of joining fees. In the HREOC consultation (does it ever stop?), Aborigines rejected the idea of paying a membership fee: 'the majority of participants did not see these options as important in funding the representative body'. Instead, they opted for 'a future fund financed through a percentage of mining tax'.

They just don't get it: you have to show your integrity by joining.

Political parties present their candidates for public office to the electors. HREOC wants the public funding without the election. A public fund for the machinery of the Aboriginal party is not on. Moreover, the Aboriginal elite lacks confidence in its people as well as in itself. Clearly, the ethics council idea stems from revulsion over the behaviour of some Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission officials on whom O'Donoghue spilled the beans for their womanising and deal-making at the Canberra casino. Who would constitute the ethics council? Would the council allow Dodson to be selected? As chief executive of the Northern Land Council, Dodson sacked an officer who successfully took Dodson to court for unfair dismissal. The judge found Dodson 'was not as conscientious as he might have been, and I regret to say, on occasions, did not give honest answers'. Would the ethics council allow O'Donoghue to be selected? She represented herself as a member of the Stolen Generations, despite by her own admission never having been stolen. These mistakes are not irredeemable, but an ethics council is a further signof a loss of confidence by Aboriginal leaders.

Indigenous Affairs Minister Jenny Macklin has indicated that the government is prepared to provide 'modest and appropriate recurrent funding for the body' benchmarked against funds provided to similar autonomous, peak representative bodies. May I respectfully suggest a small secretariat for a pan-Aboriginal advocacy organisation. Any pretence to be anything else must require an election at large. The arrogance of the HREOC submission is breathtaking. Cooper would be embarrassed. Aboriginal Australia, be confident in your people and in your professional lobbyists, but don't turn it into a circus.