Amanda Vanstone | Is Voice to Parliament better placed than local Indigenous groups?

Not that you would recognise that by reading media reports. Don't we all want better outcomes for Indigenous Australians?

Don't we want every Australian to be able to fairly share in the opportunities Australia offers. The opportunities of a largely well run, stable, peaceful country to which so many are denied around the world.

We agree that Indigenous Australians, among others, are disproportionally not getting that access and we agree that we want that to change.

Every Indigenous kid who hasn't had the chances in life most Australians get, every Indigenous person as an adult in that position, all of those unlucky enough to be on the periphery of all we offer are not there because the rest of us wanted that to happen. We wanted better than that. Much better.

Where we disagree is on how to move forward.

Governments at all levels and of both persuasions have poured in billions of dollars to help. The failures haven't been from indifference, a lack of care or worse still, a meanness of heart.

Nor has the spending been nothing more than a virtue-signalling spendfest. Policymakers, whether elected or in the bureaucracy have had noble, altruistic intentions. They've hoped with all their hearts that the small piece they've been privileged to work on would make a positive difference.

Clearly what we are doing is far less than perfect. What is not clear is that adding another Indigenous administrative body onto the existing rather large pile of Indigenous bodies will make any difference.

The glaring flaw in that approach is obvious. Indigenous advice has been and is sought. Australians, through all three levels of government, fund a very large number of Indigenous advisory bodies and service delivery agencies all around the nation.

Are the various land councils, local Indigenous health services, Aboriginal corporations and advisory bodies just useless? Are they doing nothing right? Do we really believe that all these existing and funded bodies can only do better if we have a few extra nationally elected Indigenous people to advise the federal government?

Remember the people that work in these bodies are largely locals, connected to the local land and the local Indigenous people they are trying to help. Are they perfect? No. Are they better than a distant few in Canberra? In my view, yes.

Have we got it all right? Clearly not. The smart, commonsense thing to do would be to get a good clear picture of what we are now doing. That's needed whether we decide to have the Voice or otherwise. By we, I mean all of us. Yes, all levels of government need to know. But so do universities, journalists, and the rest of us. Most importantly Indigenous Australians themselves are entitled to know where all the money is going.

Imagine living in a remote or far-remote community and reading about the oceans of money spent on Indigenous affairs. You'd have to be perplexed as to where it was going because you'd be pretty sure precious little, by way of cash or services, was coming your way.

The first thing one does if you're not happy with the bang you're getting for your buck is look at how you're spending it. Ask yourself what is working and what isn't. To that end, a national commission of audit with the powers of a royal commission should at very least be able to give an explanation to those Indigenous Australians who have missed out on opportunities. They are entitled to a decent, clear and brutally frank outline of how so much has been wasted.

We, all of us, have to own this problem. We can't do that without having the right information. A national audit that produced clear, accessible information would be a great start.

It could produce a model to be followed. It should not be a static, once-every-few-years document that hits the headlines for a few months.

It would need to be an effective up-to-date, living, interactive data base of policy efforts and their success or otherwise around Australia. It would allow many, many more people to be a part of a rich and positive conversation rather than being hectored and lectured. Bring in more knowledge rather than narrow it down to a few in Canberra.

Here's a few subject areas for a report. Where are all these Indigenous bodies, what do they do, do they report to anyone, are they transparent in their governance?

A decent report would give more detail than the Closing the Gap report does on health, education and interaction with the justice system and more. A clearer picture would allow our best policy minds, Indigenous and not, to get a better focus.

We will need to understand the different policy approaches state by state and region by region. It's all well and good to know where the gaps are. We need to know whose doing what to fix them and which policy responses are working better than others.

States will need to agree to freely share information, good and not so good. We can learn from each other. There are no simple solutions.

For example, Indigenous Australians in remote and far-remote places have had less opportunity and perhaps less desire to intermarry with the rich melting pot of Australia.

READ MORE:

That in itself produces different family structures, expectations and pressures. Services in those areas are much harder and more expensive to deliver. We will find with more thorough reporting a much more complex picture.

My argument is not to cut funding to Indigenous programs. It is to clearly identify which ones are a waste of money and which are successfully helping Indigenous Australians. The results would be insightful for any elected Voice members, if that comes to pass, and for every member of state, federal and local government in any event.

Whenever you redesigning a house, a library, a laboratory, a workplace you have to decide what stays and what goes. You certainly do not just keep adding in more stuff. You cut out the dross and bring in new stuff.

Speaking of new things, Indigenous Australia is being done a great disservice by the current self-appointed (unelected) and self-important leadership. If only they could get a new batch. But self-appointed leaders love that space. They're unlikely to move on.