Abolishment of ATSIC Report Example | Topics and Well Written Essays

Abolishment of ATSIC Introduction The changes that occur in the policies of a nation are a reflection of the various changes that are taking place in a society. In the case of the nation state of Australia, it has been realised that the role of the various elements of society, including the various communities that co exist in the country are a significant factor that affect the various policy developments and changes that are taking place in the nation state. The following paper will conduct a detailed discussion on the abolishment of the ATSIC (Aboriginal and Torres Islander Commission) in the nation state, while looking into its effect, its role in society and the changes that may occur due to the abolition. ATSIC The democratic dimensions of the ATSIC are very evident and are based in mainly the two main operations that are carried out by the body. Firstly, it is a legislative body which has been elected by the people, and secondly it helps in the better reviewing of the policies of the government, where it helps look into the various policies that have been developed by the government from the perspective of the people, especially in relation to the interests of the Aboriginal population of the country (Mark Metherell 2004). When looking at the abolishment of the body, one has to ensure that one has a clear view on the role of the ATSIC, so as to clearly analyze its effect on the society, and understand the policy changes that have occurred. The ATSIC was established in the year of 1989, and its main purpose was to ensure that the interests of the aboriginal population of the country were maintained at the national level (Geoff Clark 2003). It was both an administrative arm of the government as well as elected body, and therefore it had to play a very effective and well balanced role of ensuring that it was able to establish the will of the government while also ensuring that it upheld the needs of the people who have chosen them to represent their interests at the national level. When one looks at the strength of the ATSIC, the focus is on the fact that it had a broad legislative mandate (Fred Chaney 1998). On the basis of this it had the power to formulate and implement a number of programs. It was also able to ensure that the culture was maintained, and could give advice to the minister, including looking into the working of various committees and also ensure that the effectiveness of the programs was upheld in the long term working of the administration in the system. The functions of the ATSIC have been so established that they can adopt their mandate to its full effect and adapt to the various cultural needs of the society (Larissa Behrendt 2003). The policies that were developed by the ATSIC, with the help of its legislative objectives were aimed at ensuring that there was maximum participation of all the sections of the society including the aboriginal members of the population of the country. As has been specified in the mandate of the ATSIC the ‘furtherance of the economic, social and cultural development’ and the ‘coordination in the formulation and implementation of policies … without detracting from the responsibilities of … governments’ was the main objectives that it needs to be achieve (Larissa Behrendt 2003). Role and working of the ATSIC The main role that the ATSIC was asked to perform was to ensure that the participation of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander in the working of the society. The main role of the ATSIC is to ensure that the policies of the government was upheld among the Aboriginal population, and ensure that the various programs were developed and implemented in the society so that the overall policies of the government can be implemented in an effective manner (Michelle Grattan 2004). The role of ATSIC does not include the federal indigenous programs, and is not responsible for their functioning and implementation. It does not have any main fiscal responsibility, and its main functions mainly included only the supplementary responsibility for the social issues such as housing and domestic violence, whereas it has no responsibility towards education and it also lost it jurisdiction over health in the year of 1995. Another role of the ATSIC which helped ensure that it could add to the democratic institution of the country is that it has the capacity to ensure engage with the government at the national level lowing for greater articulation of the needs of the people at the national level. The dual role provided ATSIC with a legitimate role in determining the direction and priorities in respect of Commonwealth policy, albeit within fairly tight constraints (Meaghan Shaw 2004). The ATSIC legislation also looks into the regional councils that work in the regional level of the society, so that they can work in an effective manner, and also it advises and cooperates with the regional plans, so that the programs could be effectively managed (Misha Schubert 2004, 18th April). These powers and functions provided a governance structure at the regional level that served as an important source of advice on policy and priorities at the national level to assist with the allocation of resources and participation in decision making processes. ATSIC’s weaknesses There are some highly ineffective problems that are in place with the structure of the ATSIC due to which there is greater problems in carrying out it exercises and meeting its aims in the long term. The most significant problem that was faced by the ATSIC when working was that it did not have executive authority due to which it could not challenge the working of the government in an effective manner, in case of any discrepancies between the two. When one looks at the mandate of the ATSIC (Misha Schubert 2004, 16th April), it is observed that it has the powers to ensure that the various agencies are working in an effective manner, and also ensure that the various programs were implemented efficiently, but in order to do so it had to have the cooperation and understanding with the Commonwealth agencies and also have the involvement of the State and Territorial governments. The fact that the working of the government was usually contradictory to the working of the ATSIC greatly weakened its position and hampered its working, and thus it could never achieve its full potential and never completely participate in the policy formulation and implementation in the nation. The other weaknesses that hampered the effective working of the ATSIC were that there were no proper channels for interface when developing legislations (Office of Evaluation and Audit, Canberra, 2003), and this hampered its work in areas that it shared with the government including social issues such as education, housing and healthcare. Also there was observed that it failed to coordinate between its own internal offices such as the ATSIC Board, CEO and the Minister and Regional Councils, leading to lack of coordination and this impeded the effective working of the ATSIC in the long run. ATSIC’s abolition In the year of 2004, the final abolishment of the body of the ATSIC was announced in the month of June, where the government cited various reasons for the abolishment of the organisation (Canberra Times, 2004). In fact it was in keeping with the policy mandate of the Labour Party which had announced that it would abolish the body if it was elected into the office by the people of the nation. A 'failed experiment' One of the main reasons that was cited by the government when abolishing the body was that the fact that there were still wide spread discrepancies in the society where the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people were concerned reflected that the ATSIC failed to accomplish its aims, and was not an effective body. Many people who supported its continuation pointed out that it lacked the structural and financial powers to ensure that there could be greater mobilization of the aboriginal population (Cynthia Banham 2004), and that it was the supplementary body to the working of the government and was incapable of being completely responsible for the resolution of all issues that are being faced by the indigenous population in the society. In fact there was a failure to understand that the policies that were implemented were a direct reflection on the working of the government, and it was in fact the governmental departments who were responsible for the development of the indigenous policy development and implementation as well as the service delivery (David McLennan 1992). The image of the ATSIC was also tainted in public over the media coverage about the allegations of corruption against the Deputy Chairman R Robinson for corruption, the Chairman of the board G Clark for sexual assault, which diverted attention from the inadequacy of the government from addressing the social issues. Thus, it added to the lack of popularity in the public, where the fact that the policy of the government was weak was completely overlooked, leading to its abolishment. The fact that the labour party was re-elected o the mandate that they would abolish the ATSIC, acted as the final nail to the coffin. A more likely reason—silencing dissent It has to be realised that there were a number of stakeholders who were directly affected by the working and the dismantling of the ATSIC. The government looked at it as a body which criticized its functioning and its development of policies for the betterment of the aboriginal population were usually contradictory to the policies of the government and this only added to the overall pressure on the government (Laurie Oakes 2004). Thus its abolishment helped ensure that there was lack of policy conflict, and the government was able to function without being criticised or checked. Also the ATSIC was able to lobby in the international space for policies which were contradictory to the policies of the federal government, and through this the ATSIC was able to lay the focus on the rights and the needs of the people, where the government was more focused on the practical conciliation of the issues that persisted in society. This added pressure to the government and the policy development, as the ATSIC focused on the “Right Agenda”, which was a direct opposition to the policies of the Federal Government (Sophie Morris 2004). Thus, due to the high stakes that were being challenged by the ATSIC, its abolishment was welcomed by most in power. It was this capacity to embarrass and challenge government that some has said have led to its being the governments’ sights for dismantling. The fallout Many political scholars today have criticized the dissolution of the ATSIC, and are of the belief that its abolishment has helped silence the voice of the aboriginal population in the society, and has greatly weakened its representation at the national level. The NIC that has been developed to replace the ATSIC is believed to be problematic in a number of ways. Firstly, it is directly elected by the government and has lost the democratic voice of the ATSIC. Also it has no responsibility to ensure that the needs of the people are represented and realised at the national level (The Hon. John Howard 1989). They have no responsibility towards the indigenous people whose interest they have to realise and uphold, leading to lack of any accountability. Conclusion In conclusion it can be said that the abolishment of the AATSIC was a result of various factors that had all come together in a need for ensuring that the policies of the government be upheld. The need of an agency such as the ATSIC is much required in the Australian society, and in fact, one which would be more empowered would be better at realising at the needs of the indigenous and ensuring that the government functions in an effective manner. In fact organisations and bodies such as the ATSIC help uphold the democratic fibre in society and help realise the establishment of a just and equal polity. References Canberra Times, 2004, ‘Beyond the silo: connecting government’, Public Sector Informant, Canberra Times, May 2004. Cynthia Banham 2004, ‘Blacks will boycott waste-of-space board: Dodson’, Patrick Dodson quoted, Sydney Morning Herald, 17 April 2004, p. 4. David McLennan 1992, ‘ATSIC axe like bad old days, say leaders’, Canberra Times, 7 May 2004; see also Martin Mowbray, ‘Mainstreaming as assimilation in the Northern Territory’,Australian Aboriginal Studies, 1992, pp. 20–1. Fred Chaney 1998, ‘Alan Missen Memorial Lecture [Delivered at Parliament House, Canberra, 27 August 1997]’, Melbourne Journal of Politics, volume 25 1998, pp. 9–20. Geoff Clark 2003, ‘ATSIC is not a Native Title for Scapegoat’, Courier-Mail, 28 March 2003, p. 19 Larissa Behrendt 2003, ‘ATSIC Bashing’, Arena Magazine, 67, October–November 2003, p. 28. Laurie Oakes 2004, ‘Exploding ATSIC inevitable’, Bulletin with Newsweek, 21 April 2004, p. 14. Mark Metherell 2004, ‘Aboriginal freeze’, Sydney Morning Herald, 12 May 2004, p. 7. Michelle Grattan 2004, ‘How ATSIC offered its neck for Howard’s axe’, Sun-Herald, 18 April 2004, p. 58. Meaghan Shaw 2004, ‘Declaring ATSIC failed, Howard puts it to death’, The Age, 16 April 2004, p. 1. Misha Schubert 2004, ‘Howard’s plan no guarantee’, The Australian, 18 April 2004, p. 4. Misha Schubert 2004, ‘Big list of candidates, but few likely to accept post’, Alison Anderson quoted , The Australian, 16 April 2004, p. 4 Office of Evaluation and Audit, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission, Putting the pieces together: Regional plans, data and outcomes, Canberra, 2003, p. 85. Sophie Morris 2004, ‘ATSIC “made a scapegoat”’, The Australian, 7 April 2004, p. 3. The Hon. John Howard 1989, ‘Ministerial Statement: Administration of Aboriginal Affairs’, House of Representatives, Debates, 11 April 1989, p. 1328. Read More

Abolishment of ATSIC - Report Example

Extract of sample "Abolishment of ATSIC"