Tom Calma: Indigenous Advisory Body to have Full Gender Equality at All Levels

tomcalmaTom Calma, the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Justice Commissioner, announced today at the National Press Club the proposed formation of a new national advisory body to bring the voice of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders to the Minister, Parliament, and bureaucrats. Tom Calma is lder from the Kungarakan tribal group and a member of the Iwaidja tribal group whose traditional lands are south west of Darwin and on the Coburg Peninsula in Northern Territory. He has experience in Indigenous education and policy, business, and diplomacy, and he has been the Commissioner since 2004.

The new body will aim to become a marshalling force for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peak bodies and community organisations across the nation, with a focus on diverse and marginalised voices including women, people with disabilities, youth, and elders. The announcement follows twelve months of consultation with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities, including a 100-member Adelaide congress in March.

Notably, this national representative body has been planned with strict gender equality from the ground up. Not only will the co-chairs be one male and one female person, but the National Executive and each individual chamber of the decision-making National Congress must have equal numbers of men and women. (No reporter asked how this would be applied to trans and intersex people.)

Calma noted that women have in the past felt very marginalised in some “representative” Indigenous bodies. A holistic view of the community can only be gained by setting this benchmark for full equality in all the corporate bodies and structures. Calma went on:

Gender equality is a lesson I think other organisations and the mainstream could learn from.

Calma said that one Aboriginal Land Council has already taken this ball and run with it, mandating equal gender representation in their decision-making structure, and that he hoped more bodies would begin to take this on board.

Stating that the nation has suffered over the past five years from the lack of strong national representation, Calma repeatedly made the point that Australia has no hope of becoming a reconciled nation or closing the gap without robust, respectful partnerships between Indigenous people and government.

The new body, if it gets the go-ahead, will aim to become a self-sustaining company over the next five to ten years, with tax deductible donations and corporate support after government startup funding runs out. Calma emphasised the need for self-sustainability, a consensus-based model of decision-making, multiple levels of consultation, and proactive ethical oversight. He talked about how the conversations we were having now are nothing new, and on the need for a focus on generational challenges to equality, instead of having the same conversations over again in twenty years. The key priority areas at this stage remain housing, health, education, child protection, through a process of respectful consultation and self determination.

Calma criticised the government’s past response to reports on Indigenous disadvantage, emphasising the need to not “cherry-pick” recommendations, but to respect the time, engagement and intellectual effort put into the reports by community members by addressing the recommendations in a holistic and cohesive manner. The discarding of so many report recommendations in the past has led to a community distrust in the process, with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders despairing of any action. “Oh yes another report” is the resulting attitude, rather than hope that something may change.

Asked why Noel Pearson wasn’t involved, Calma said that the steering body has gone through a transparent and fair twelve-month process of consultation, focus groups, and submissions, with strong involvement from Indigenous media including radio, television, and newspapers, as well as travelling consultation around the country to urban, rural, and remote areas. He expressed difficult understanding that anyone involved in Indigenous affairs and media might not have known about the steering committee’s process, and said that

If they’ve missed out and not taken up that opportunity, that’s something they have to deal with.

Calma also talked about recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples in the Constitution, discarding the preamble idea and talking about a possible Human Rights Act as well as substantive changes within the Constitution itself. The first applause of the day came at this point.

The second came when Calma suggested that a few other entities could do with having a formal Ethics Council. The issue of ethical oversight was particularly fraught. The organisation will include an Ethics Council which will vet all potential National Executive members to make sure they’re a “fit and proper person” for the role. Challenged on whether this may be about censorship, hushing outspoken voices, or silencing inconvenient opinions, Calma reiterated that its role would not be to censor content, but to ensure that the body would be able to withstand criticism. Calma said that the ethics council would not be choosing Congress and Executive members, but would be a shortlisting process so that they may then all present themselves to the Congress and state their claims. The shadow of ATSIC seemed to loom large over this part of the conversation, though it was never spoken.

Calma’s closing words were:

From self respect comes dignity, and from dignity comes hope.

Categories: gender & feminism, indigenous, Politics

Tags: , , , , ,

5 replies

  1. I hope it works out.

  2. I really hope this goes well, I can see the Bolts and Albrechtsens circling now with their sneers and jeers and pouncing on every thing that goes wrong.

  3. It looks as though care is being taken though. This seems to be a really good development. I like the stance on gender equity.

  4. Mostly I think this looks like a lot of steps in the right direction. Although I find myself highly skeptical about the long term integrity of an Ethics Council. I think it would need water tight terms of reference and scope to avoid becoming a tool of “jobs for the boys” (and girls, since it has gender equality built in).
    Overall, an idea that is both radical and conservative – K.Rudd might like it.
    (Personally not a fan of requiring all endeavours to be self-sustaining financially, although I can understand the motivation in this case.)

    • “a lot of steps in the right direction” seems to sum up the general reaction here, and it’s mine as well, with the shared apprehension about what it might mean if not well enough planned and supported, allowing the naysayers to pounce on any problems, as Helen said.
      I’m also with shonias on the problems with requiring self-sustaining funding – it’s an economic “rationalist” political trope which is really nothing more than sheer laziness in analysing the effects and outcomes of public policy across multiple departments/areas.
      Here in NSW Greiner’s big idea that public transport should be financially self-sustaining through ticket sales (so prices were raised) did nothing more than make people take cars instead to save money, with the double effect of (a) gutting PT terribly and (b) increasing the public money that had to be spent on ever-more-congested commuter road systems. A proper analysis would have taken the interaction between different areas of public spending on commuter transit into account and realised that generous funding of PT was offset by saved public money on road systems.
      So, what current (non-indigenous) advisory systems on indigenous affairs is this new body going to make redundant, and how much public money will that save? How much money will be saved by having a single body existing to point out where current bureaucratic systems run at cross-purposes or leave gaps in Indigenous Affairs (flaws that mean that Social Services, Public Health, or the Corrections system, has to pick up the pieces and the tab down the line)? These are the questions that should be asked by those who instead prefer to be smug about self-sustaining funding set-ups.

%d bloggers like this: