Australia: Establishment of a National Indigenous Representative Body In 2008, the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Justice Commissioner, Mr. Tom Calma, released a paper, outlining key considerations in the development of a new National Indigenous Representative Body in Australia. The paper identifies the many and varied issues that need to be considered in the establishment of a new representative body but does not propose a model for the body itself, as the decisions should be taken through consultations with the indigenous peoples of Australia. Considering the general applicability of Mr. Calma’s considerations, a comprehensive summary is presented below: Principles that should underpin a National Indigenous Representative Body: • Legitimacy and credibility with both government and Indigenous peoples. • “Two-way” accountability – to Government and to indigenous peoples. • Transparency and accountability in its operations, in the mechanisms for determining membership or election; in policy making processes; and financial processes. • True representativeness of a diverse indigenous polity (ensuring participation of different groups of indigenous peoples, traditional owners, youth and women for example). • A consistent and “connected” structure, with a clear relationship between the national body and indigenous peak bodies, service delivery organisations and other representative mechanisms.
70
• Independence and robustness in its advocacy and analysis. Possible roles and functions of a National Indigenous Representative Body: • Government Programme Delivery; e.g. determining priorities for the federal budget, contributing to planning processes, or monitoring government service delivery. • Advocacy; its effectiveness will depend on a number of issues, including whether it is located within or outside of government and whether there is a robust representative structure. • Policy formulation and critique; respect for the principle of free, prior and informed consent requires a new, more open and collaborative approach to policy development by government departments, where consultations are carried out to reach consensus, not simply to provide input. • Contributing to Law Reform; it could actively pursue law reform and be involved in coordinating and supporting test cases in cooperation with indigenous legal organisations and movements. • Review and Evaluation; if equipped with investigative authority and a robust regional structure, it could be well-placed to receive “field reports” on government performance, which could feed into advocacy and policy formulation. • Clearing House; it could act as a “clearing house” to share information between indigenous representative organisations and service delivery organisations.
INDIG E NO US & TRIBAL P EOP LES ’ RIGHTS IN P RACTICE – A GUID E TO ILO CON V EN TION No . 169