National Aboriginal Alliance federal intervention database

by Graham Ring

There is a particularly nasty piece of work doing the rounds at the moment. It's a 'standard letter' that emanates from the office of the Hon Mal Brough MP, Minister for Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs.

"Dear Correspondent" it begins, with the kind of warmth that Aboriginal people across the country have come to associate with Malcolm Thomas Brough.

"The Minister has noted your views, in particular your comments about the Combined Aboriginal Organisations of the Northern Territory (CAO)."

No doubt letter writers across the country would have been flattered to hear that the Minister had masticated their missive. But they were only a line away from a let down.

The Minister had deigned not to respond directly and had instead delegated that task to his Chief of Staff, one David Moore. Mr Moore was too tactful to advise his interlocutors that his boss was frantically gladhanding electors in a last-ditch bid to save his marginal Queensland seat from being swept away on the outgoing tide of coalition fortunes.

Nevertheless Mr Moore explained that "the Minister has asked me to respond on his behalf and I would like to provide some clarification." We were travelling reasonably well as we reached the end of the first paragraph, but things were about to take a turn for the worse.

As Mr Moore warmed to his task of 'clarifying' the issues at hand, he unleashed a torrent of disingenuous manipulation so twisted as to be redolent of His Master's Voice.

"CAO is not a representative body" he began "and can't assume authority to speak on behalf of Aboriginal people". True. He really did. But we wonder if the corners of his lips were twitching as he contemplated the train-wreck that is the National Indigenous Council - the Minister's hand-picked unrepresentative body of Indigenous experts who make appearances with about the same frequency as Haley's Comet.

More in sorrow than anger, Mr Moore divulges to his correspondents that the CAO is "a political alliance of organisations". But it gets worse. Just around the corner is the shocking revelation that many of these organisations "rely on taxpayer funds to exist."

Last time I looked it was still legal for publicly funded-groups in Australia to organise for political purposes. Even if motivations of this kind carry with them the sinister taint of democracy, they are still technically within the bounds of the criminal law.

But to "rely on taxpayers funds to exist" and then have the temerity to form independent positions which may be at odds with those of the government of the day is clearly beyond the pale.

It would seem that the writer expects all taxpayer-funded organisations to dance to the government's tune in a 'conga line of suckholes' - to borrow a phrase from an earlier prime ministerial aspirant.

And it turns out that some of the people in the COA have got 'form'. Mr Moore feels duty-bound to point out that "several self-appointed spokespeople were part of the former ATSIC".

He neglects to state just what sort of punishment he thinks is appropriate for people who were involved in a national, elected representative body, but his dripping disdain is palpable.

"Indeed, some [CAO members] seek the restoration of an ATSIC-like body" he harrumphs, in a tone which suggests that representative democracy is an outmoded second-millennium concept.

Lest we appear to be unduly critical of the good Mr Moore, let's give him the thumbs-up for his generous acknowledgement that "any person in Australia has a right to express a view".

Sadly, this admirably libertarian sentiment quickly gives way to another round of tut-tutting as the writer points out that "it is not surprising that some people who feel their preferred programs, funding sources, or positions of power might be affected… might seek to oppose change."

This fella can certainly carry a tune on the dog-whistle. Translation: Those who speak against the intervention are merely protecting their vested interests, and by definition have no legitimate case.

The writer then has the temerity to accuse some of the CAO spokespeople of using language which is "unfounded and mischievous".

Mr Moore is hiding his light under a bushel - for he, himself is clearly a dab-hand at the 'mischievous language' caper. He objects, for example, to the use of the term 'land-grab' by CAO members.

But it's much snappier than having to repeat a long and tortuous word string like "the wholly unjustified and unilateral acquisition of townships by a government which has comprehensively failed to make the connection between this draconian action, and its stated interest in protecting Indigenous children."

Too wordy. 'Land-grab' is much better and entirely appropriate in the circumstances.

In his penultimate paragraph, Mr Moore shoots for the moon, speaking of Aboriginal people being "liberated from abuse, poverty and despair." (Stage instructions call for a swelling of triumphant music at this point. Small children are encouraged to wave Australian flags, and adults may brush away tears as long as this is done in a dignified and understated manner.)

Whether through oversight, or something more sinister, Mr Moore neglects to mention that Aboriginal people have also been relieved of other burdens. The onerous task of participating in genuine consultation has, for example, been lifted from their shoulders.

They are also relieved of the need to agonise over how they will spend the money to which they are entitled. Finally, they are spared the bother of pursuing their rights under the Racial Discrimination Act.

But the Combined Aboriginal Organisations of the Northern Territory will continue to speak loudly and clearly in defence of the human rights of Indigenous Territorians. Regardless of who Mr Brough and Mr Moore try to lean on.