Arguing about Indigenous administrative participation in the Whitlam era: A representation theory analysis

Elizabeth Ganter*

*Corresponding author for this work

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

    Abstract

    In 1974 Prime Minister Gough Whitlam established the Royal Commission on Australian Government Administration (‘the Commission’), appointing HC Coombs as chair. The Commission's brief was ‘to inquire into and report on the administrative organization and services of the Australian Government’ giving particular attention to, among other issues, public servants’ ‘participation in forming policy and making decisions’. From the outset the Commission aligned itself with the view that Aboriginal people were ‘less than proportionately represented in the administration’. The Commission asked CD Rowley to prepare a report on Aboriginal issues. Barrie Dexter, Secretary of the newly established Department of Aboriginal Affairs and Charles Perkins, Assistant Secretary and Arrernte man from Central Australia, both gave evidence to the Commission. The competing ideas on Indigenous administrative participation expressed by Coombs, Rowley, Dexter and Perkins in the course of the Commission will be considered through the lens of representation theory. While all four doubted the capacity of the bureaucracy to provide a meaningful channel for Indigenous representation internally, each argued from a different view of representation. Understanding their positions on how Indigenous people should be represented in public administration, including their assumption that there would also be external Indigenous representation, could shed light on tensions that are still present today.

    Original languageEnglish
    Pages (from-to)S19-S27
    JournalAustralian Journal of Public Administration
    Volume77
    DOIs
    Publication statusPublished - Dec 2018

    Fingerprint

    Dive into the research topics of 'Arguing about Indigenous administrative participation in the Whitlam era: A representation theory analysis'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

    Cite this