AustLII Home | Databases | WorldLII | Search | Feedback

Indigenous Law Bulletin

Indigenous Law Bulletin
You are here:  AustLII >> Databases >> Indigenous Law Bulletin >> 1997 >> [1997] IndigLawB 99

Database Search | Name Search | Recent Articles | Noteup | LawCite | Help

Smith, Kevin; Lui, Gary --- "Torres Strait Islanders: a New Deal for whom?" [1997] IndigLawB 99; (1997) 4(7) Indigenous Law Bulletin 10

Torres Strait Islandedrs: A New Deal for Whom?

By Kevin Smith and Gary Lui

Recently, the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs (‘the Committee’) concluded its community consultations and tabled its report—Torres Strait Islanders: A New Deal–A Report on Greater Autonomy for Torres Strait Islanders (‘the Report’)—in Federal Parliament. The Committee’s terms of reference involved inquiring into greater autonomy for Torres Straits Islanders and the implications for mainland Torres Strait Islanders, including the nature of the appropriate body to represent their interests.

Prima facie it seems that a lot is promised in the Report with respect to the future of the Torres Strait and its people. Governments do not routinely commission official inquiries into greater self determination for indigenous peoples. To its credit, the Committee has highlighted the need to improve the delivery of basic health services and the importance of industry and eco–tourism in reinvigorating traditional agricultural, fishing and trading skills in achieving self–determination. However, we have two major concerns with the Report; first, whether, prior to and in the course of consultations, Torres Strait Islanders were given sufficient information upon which they could base their opinions; and second, whether their aspirations have been accurately reflected in the Report.

A cursory glance at Hansard suggests that the Committee consulted extensively with Islanders, but, on closer examination, it becomes clear that whilst it visited many of the relevant centres, its members spent little time in each, and Islanders did not fully appreciate the nature of their inquiries. Moreover, although English is a third or fourth language for most Torres Strait Islanders, seldom spoken, and never spoken by choice, the services of appropriate cross cultural and linguistic facilitators were not engaged.

The Report recommends that the current governing bodies—the national Torres Strait Regional Authority (TSRA) which receives funding from the Aboriginal and Torres Strait islander Commission (ATSIC), the Torres Strait Shire Council, which operates under the Local Government Act 1993 (Qld), and the Island Co-ordinating Council (‘ICC’), operating under the Community Services (Torres Strait) Act 1984 (Qld)—be replaced by a Torres Strait Regional Assembly with the co-operation of the Queensland and Federal Governments. It also recommends that all residents of the Torres Strait region, indigenous or otherwise, be eligible to be elected to this Assembly.

These recommendations raise major issues about the accurate reflection of the aspirations of Torres Strait Islanders in the Report. Whilst they aspire to greater autonomy, the questions must be asked—for whom and at what price? Should Torres Strait Islanders be made aware of the implications, they would be unlikely to forsake the current safeguards.

Currently, all residents of the Islands are eligible to vote, but only Torres Strait Islanders may be elected to Island Councils. This at least partly protects the interests of, and empowers, Islanders. Under the proposed model, however, individuals who have no traditional affiliations with the Torres Straits could be elected to any Torres Strait Island Community Council, as well as to the proposed Assembly as the sole representative of any of the Torres Strait Island communities.

Although under this proposal, the weight of Torres Strait Islander’s numbers—around 80 per cent within the Torres Straits—would apparently ensure a concentration of power in the hands of Torres Strait Islanders, history suggests that this would not necessarily be the case. Inevitably, decision making would become the province of elected representatives other than Torres Strait Islanders who are more able to assert themselves in complex governmental conditions, or of a handful of Torres Strait Islanders and their advisers.

The Report does not address the nature of special measures which might be required to implement more culturally appropriate mechanisms of government in which power is distributed more equitably. The manner in which the terms ‘territory’ and ‘assembly’ were used with reckless abandon in the Committee’s consultations is also problematic. Torres Strait Islanders could be excused for envisaging such a ‘territory’ as being under the sole control of Torres Strait Islanders, when in fact the proper meaning of the term implies that all members of an electorate may vote, including individuals other than Torres Strait Islanders. The Committee’s references to the Canadian Nunavut model of an indigenous parliament in formulating the proposed Torres Strait Regional Assembly raises similar issues, in that it is proposed that membership of the former should be open to all residents of the region.

The recommendations concerning mainlanders are also alarming. Mainlanders identify strongly with their families in the Islands. However, their needs in the quest for social justice are different, and they identify themselves as a ‘minority living within a minority’. This is not adequately reflected in government bodies such as the Office of Torres Strait Islander Affairs (OTSIA) within ATSIC and the Torres Strait Islander Advisory Board (TSIAB), which is the primary advisor to the Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs. Neither can mainlanders avail themselves of the TSRA, which caters only for the Torres Strait and does not have a mainland elected representative. Currently, the non-government National Secretariat of Torres Strait Islander Organisations Ltd is seeking to redress this lack of representation.

The resounding opinion of mainland Torres Strait Islanders is that they should be removed from the auspices of OTSIA and that a separate mainland Torres Strait Islander Commission should be established to represent their needs. Nevertheless, although the Committee has recommended an increase in funding to OTSIA and to TSIAB, it has proposed that mainland interests should remain the concern of ATSIC.

Finally, the Committee does not appear to have appreciated that ‘Ailan Kastom’ must be located at the centre of any successful model of Torres Strait Islander autonomy. Had it done so, the Report would have demonstrated greater awareness of what it is that Islanders really want.


AustLII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback
URL: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/IndigLawB/1997/99.html