Williams, John D B --- "The Charles Perkins Report -- Another Hue of Green?" [1990] AboriginalLawB 14; (1990) 1(43) Aboriginal Law Bulletin 10

• The Charles Perkins Report – Another Hue Of Green?

---

The Charles Perkins Report –
Another Hue of Green?

by John D B Williams

Senior Research Officer for The NSW Aboriginal Land Council

The NSW Aboriginal Land Rights Act 1983 - Recommendations for change (The Perkins Report) which was commissioned by the Greiner Government was tabled in Parliament recently. The Perkins Report ostensibly arises out of an objective enquiry in which Aboriginals "were given an opportunity to play a meaningful role in the reform process", and in which their informed consent was obtained. (1.3.PR).

The consultant says that "any unilateral imposition of change on Aboriginals from above is counter-productive and doomed to fail. Worthwhile reform can only come about within the context of genuine consensus and informed consent'. ibid.

Upon reading the report there appears serious methodological deficiencies in the consultancy, with a priori attitudes being foisted upon the Aboriginal communities. This calls to question whether the high ideals of the preamble cited above, have been maintained. In short, "Does the report reflect Aboriginal aspirations and desires for self sufficiency and self determination or does it merely differ in degree and not kind from the Green Paper?" The vast majority of Aboriginals saw the Green Paper as an attempt to eliminate the 1983 Land Rights legislation and return to the days of paternalism and dependency rather than self determination and autonomy. (See The Green Paper on Aboriginal Affairs in NSW, AboriginalLB No38 pp10-11)

If indeed it is an extension of the underlying sociological presuppositions in the Green Paper we should heed the words of Garth Nettheim, Professor of Law at the University of NSW, when he criticised it. "...for subverting the key principles which underlie the 1983 legislation. Aboriginal Affairs is perceived once again, as a matter of welfare, and not as it should be, as a matter of self-determination and justice".

The suggested alternative to the Aboriginal Land Rights Act, 1983 (NSW) is a merger between the Aboriginal Affairs Office and the Land Council structure with the virtual elimination of powers at the regional level and the duties of the NSW Aboriginal Land Council taken over by a new Aboriginal Affairs Commission. The elimination of effective regional councils can be seen as a way in which genuine control is eroded and swift political action thwarted by a cumbersome and unworkable alternative which would somehow require the centralized structure to assess all 117 Local Land Councils on given issues.

The concept is a masterpiece in diplomatic strategy. Indigenous commissioners; local land council representation; consultants to the Government; creation of a separate Aboriginal Affairs portfolio; retention of the 7.5% land tax component; sale of land which has no cultural significance and improved accounting and auditing procedures. It would appear that the originators of the Green Paper have had an evangelical conversion and reversed earlier opposition to self-determination. With the imprimatur of a consultant with such high public profile why would one hesitate to endorse the proposal?

However, another viewpoint can be argued which would seriously question such exuberance and consider it a subtle insidious and calculating document. It provides the necessary machinery to virtually silence the independent autonomous voice of the NSW Aboriginal community by it being lost in the maze of an all encompassing departmental programme.

It should be borne in mind that the same characters are back stage who designed the rejected Green Paper. Where there are important changes and Government compromise they should be seen as reluctant concessions after intense agitation by an overwhelming Aboriginal protest supported by clergy and academics. Care should be taken in detecting genuine innovative contributions apart from the adoption of inevitable reforms requested by the Aboriginal Land Council whose very existence and power base appear undermined. It is here that the consultant, facing a formidable and unenviable task, has made his most important contribution. His empathy for his community is not questioned, but has his long background and competence in governmental procedure edged him into a departmental solution? Would his alternative statutory, bureaucratic structure, administered by a Government appointee, be utilised by present and future politicians for political purposes, foreign to both the consultant and the Aboriginal Community he represents?

Research is underway assessing the methodological procedures utilised in the consultancy. From an initial and cursory examination the report does not reflect a grass root Aboriginal view point, at least, not from detailed written responses received by the NSWALC. The consultant concludes, "There is now common ground between the Government and Aboriginals in respect of the establishment of a commission to be responsible for those functions currently performed by the NSWALC and the OAA." (PR s4)

In contrast, respondents, to the NSW ALC questionnaire over-whelmingly called for the abolition of the OAA. It is incomprehensible to accept that a community, which is nearly unanimous in their suspicions of the Office, should suddenly desire to merge with it and place their own sacrosanct land claims and holdings in the hands of this organisation administered by a ministerial appointee, albeit with regional indigenous commissioners with mere advisory portfolios.

Made aware of the serious disparity, the NSWALC invited Perkins Report Task Force Consultants to attend a meeting in Sydney. The consultants were unanimous in their disapproval of statements made in the Report giving the impression that Aboriginal people over-whelmingly approved of the concept of a Commission. The consultants expressed frustration for not having seen the Report nor, in some cases, the minutes of meetings they addressed. The overall impression was one of an unprofessional hurried whirlwind tour with insufficient time for the communities to absorb the enormity of the issues at stake and without the usual characteristics of objectivity associated with any census.

The Council unanimously rejected this aspect of the report and have commenced plans for a more definitive democratic procedure to be used at the State Conferences to assess the opinion of the delegates of Local Land Councils in NSW.

Apart from the perceived discrepancies between the reports bold claims and communities opinions, there appear to be drafted sections, designed for a Green Paper type Act, superimposed upon the recommended reforms. Whilst there can be no certainty in this matter without access to procedural records, the Task Force would have had to work extremely efficiently to have completed detailed legislative drafting and the report in a matter of six weeks. It is a shame that applications for Land Claims have not been met with such efficiency. There are numerous claims which have not been determined since the present Government assumed office.

The November 1978 Select Committee of the NSW Legislative Assembly Upon Aborigines, published their report after approximately two years of rigorous enquiry in August 1980. The ensuing Act established a three tier land council structure of local, regional and state Councils. The importance of regional organisations was not only acknowledged by the Select Committee and confirmed by bipartisan approval of the Act, but also by ATSIC. Dr Coombs and Miss Lois O'Donoghue both concluded in their reviews for ATSIC that regional councils found community support. The Perkins Report suggests that the Government will temporarily utilise the existing regional areas and employ the existing regional representatives as commissioners until the first election. The Aboriginal Commissioners, equivalents of the existing state delegates of NSW Council, are to live in the area and to have, offices in their region, yet with a mere advisory role.

It begs the question, why eliminate the present three tier system when local land councils already have direct access to the State Land Council and the Land and Environment Court?

Perhaps the answer lies in the crucial centre of power and control in the present structure. The issues at stake are not merely philosophical theories, political positions or moral and humane perspectives, but the very life and destiny of a race of people. In principle it could well be the antithesis of the 1983 Act and defeat the very purpose of the legislation - Autonomy and Dignity.

The present Council, elected democratically through the local and regional councils, while requiring moderate electoral refinement in some cases as suggested in the Perkins Report, is the crucial bone of contention.

Not only does it speak authoritatively and decisively, it is also completely independent and its decisions reflect genuine evidence of autonomy and independence, the likes of which NSW has never seen since the powder keg proved superior to the spear.

No such autonomy is planned for NSW Aborigines. The Commission has its CEO appointed by the Minister. The subtle permanence of public service employment could possibly affect objectivity in critical areas where a conflict of interest could arise and its assets would be virtually in the hands of any vacillating Government seeking to balance its budgets.

After belatedly being given the key of the door by enlightened legislators in 1983 the key is about to be taken back by other legislators who think they know what is best for NSW Aborigines. If this "lively experiment" for restoring a meaningful place in our Community for a disinherited Indigenous race is reduced to mere token ownership it will confirm to many Aborigines that the settlers of this country are basically plunderers whose word, through changeable statutes, is worthless.