Views from Western Australia

Today Tom Calma delivered the final report of the Steering Committee for the creation of a new national representative body for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples to the Government.
The long awaited report - Our future in our hands - Creating a sustainable National Representative Body for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples - outlines a proposed model for a new national representative body for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples, which was designed and developed from 12 months of intensive consultations with Indigenous peoples.
Arriving at this stage has required an unprecedented level of consultation and negotiation in the highly contentious and politically-charged area of Indigenous affairs.  Firstly, Mr Calma facilitated a process to recruit 10 influential and innovative interlocutors from among the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander community to comprise a Steering Committee. It then oversaw a rigorous, open and transparent selection process to select 100 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples to attend a three-day workshop to maximise participation and contribution to developing the model.
The Steering committee used the workshop outcomes, online submission and survey processes, as well as focus groups, to guide the process and ultimately develop a preferred model for a new national representative body for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples.
Commissioner Calma said in his National Press Club address that establishing such a body is the most significant step in reconciliation and resetting the relationship between Government and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples since the National Apology. The handover of this model to Government is an historic moment for the nation’s Indigenous people.
Now there are two hurdles to overcome.  Firstly, whether Government accepts the model and is prepared to  adequately resource it.  Secondly, whether the Indigenous community embraces it.

No doubt there will be a rigorous debate on whether this is the right model and now is the right time.

This week the WA Govt formally withdrew its appeal against the Federal court’s decision on Native Title over Broome.This is as a result of a negotiated settlement with the native title claimants up there and the rep body was the KLC. This is potentially  a good sign for Noongars prgressing negotiations on the Willcox decision in relation to the ‘Single Noongar Claim’  as the Broome decision has a lot of parallels to the   the Noongar decision.

On the 27 January 2008 respected Warburton Aboriginal elder Mr Ward collapsed in the back of a Global Solutions Limited van after a four-hour trip from Laverton to Kalgoorlie in Australia’s remote West. Mr Ward died a short time later at Kalgoorlie Regional Hospital. The 46-year-old elder was being transferred to face a charge of drink driving. He was found unconscious in the back of the van in the middle of the afternoon when temperatures outside exceeded 40 degrees.

The van’s air-conditioning was not operational. The van is part of a fleet owned by the Western Australian State Government but managed by the private prison management GlobalSolutions Limited.

No matter what the Coroner determines - and I look forward to his findings and recommendations - the State of Western Australia is responsible for the Death or Mr Ward and appropriate compensation should be paid to his family.

The WA ‘Deaths IN Custody Watch Committee’ has organised a rally and march to be held this Friday lunchtime in Perth.

Indigenous rights is based on the principles that Indigenous people should be acknowledged as the first peoples of this country and that they should enjoy the rights and interests that flow from that status.  This debate is as relevant today as at any time of our history.

Contrary to this rights based approach, the Northern Territory Intervention that began in the dying year of the Howard Government and continued, in some fashion under the Rudd Government, is a doomed experiment of social and economic reconstruction.  It has failed to gain the traction in the communities it was supposed to support and will continue to fail because of a very fundamental lack of consultation, recognition, and consent of the people it is seeking to engage.  It is an exercise in top-down enforced change to which the community must capitulate or face sanctions.  It makes a mockery of their rights as citizens let alone their rights as the traditional owners of the country.

Nevertheless, there has been some good that has come from the NT Intervention but these outcomes are from the large amount of resources that have been thrown at the issues such as health screening or other remedial measures.  These are resources that should have been there in the first place and it shouldn’t have taken near economic and social collapse for them to be brought to bear.

There are lessons from the NT Intervention.  One is that there is a huge task ahead to overcome Indigenous disadvantage and that it will take more than one season of commitment from the Government.  The other lesson from the NT is that the Aboriginal community must be part of any solution to the problems they face.  The community cannot be “done unto”.  It is old government, old thinking, and it should have been relegated to the rubbish heap of history.  But history does have a habit of repeating itself and WA looks set to do just that.

The WA Government recently revealed its Indigenous implementation committee.  This is a committee chaired by Lieutenant General Sanderson and includes influential people such as Fiona Stanley along with some members of the Indigenous community such as Sue Gordon and Mark Bin Bakar.

The Indigenous Implementation Committee is a poorly conceived process that lacks any statutory clout and has no public sector mandate.  On one hand it is a board to oversee a government department and on the other a free-wheeling think tank.  It appears to be creating leadership by proxy for a Government that has very little commitment to Indigenous interests and rights.

The Indigenous Implementation Committee has been set up to fail.  Lieutenant General Sanderson has no authority, no statutory powers, and no way - other than by the force of personality - to compel the Government to do anything. 

I don’t seek to criticise the Lieutenant General or any of the members of the committee, they are as committed and desperate as anyone to see an end to the misery and despair faced by many Aboriginal people in WA; particularly in regional and remote areas.  My criticism is focused squarely at the Government.  They are seeking to once again to impose yet another regime and authority on a community dealing with the accumulated impact of generations of imposed religions, laws, regulation, removal and representation.

Why didn’t the Government consult on how Aboriginal people actually wanted to have change take place in their community.    Why didn’t they learn from the lessons of the NT Intervention and seek to get people’s ownership of the programs and solutions that are put in place.

We do have an example of what works for change in Aboriginal communities.  Last year, women in Fitzroy Crossing fought for and won an important reprieve for their community – the restriction on the sale of take-away alcohol to at least give the community breathing space from the debilitating effect of alcohol on their community.  In achieving these things, they have undertaken an important process: the change they sought and the change brought about came from the ground up – for, indeed, this is the only way sustained change can occur. 

Sustained change in Aboriginal communities does not come from ideas imposed from outside the community; where community members have no role in decision making – including no consultation and no negotiation.  Change will only be sustained when they have had a key role in the decision making process.

The Sanderson Committee has not been formed through community engagement and the community has had no buy-in.  We have seen by it actions the value the Government places on Indigenous consultation.  The Premier’s announcement that Kimberley traditional owners must submit to his ideas on the Kimberley Gas Hub speaks volumes for the importance he places on the views of Indigenous people.

The formation of the Indigenous Implementation Committee raises more questions than answers.  It has no mandate other than the personal desire of the Minister.  There is no indication of how the committee will function. What will happen if the committee disagrees with the Director General of the DIA, the Minister, or the Premier for that matter?  What will happen if the WA Aboriginal Advisory Committee has an alternate view of the policy developments of the Sanderson committee: and, who will the Minister back?  Will the Government be bound by the committee’s decisions?  Will other Ministers or their directors-general heed or even care what they have to say?

The third, and most disturbing, aspect of the committee’s formation is that it is being undertaken at a time when Indigenous rights and the condition of the Aboriginal community are under renewed attack.

While the Government is trying to shroud itself in the idea that it actually cares about Aboriginal people in this state through the formation of the Sanderson Committee, look at what it had done in its short time in office.

Before Christmas, the Attorney-General announced his intention to introduce measures and laws to Parliament that will swell the numbers of Aboriginal people in our already over-crowded jails.  One of the first actions of the Premier was to signal his intention to override the rights and views of Aboriginal people in the Kimberley regarding the go-ahead and location of the gas hub – a gesture made all the more disturbing when one considers the progress and process of negotiation that had taken place up to that point and had brought agreement almost to point of being achieved. Finally, on the issue of ‘Native Title’; this government has had three different Ministers for Native Title in its first 100 days of government!

What does that tell us?

It hasn’t taken long for the Premier, Colin Barnett, to show his true colours in his newly acquired native title portfolio. It is clear from his recent speech at a meeting of business leaders that the native title rights and interests of Traditional Owners are not high on his list of priorities.

In Opposition Mr Barnett lobbied hard to try and protect the rights of Traditional Owners over the Woodside development on the Burrup Peninsula – yet now he is in Government those positive messages have become a distant memory.

Mr Barnett’s "unashamedly pro-development" stance means that once again Indigenous rights and interests over land will be subordinated in favour of mining. A development at any costs approach will not provide any benefits for Indigenous communities in the Kimberley.

If this is the position of the new State Government in Western Australia then there is not much hope for the future of Indigenous rights.

Until Traditional Owners have an equal seat at the table in negotiations over land there is no hope of closing the gap for Aboriginal people – Traditional Owners, under the Native Title Act, have the right to negotiate over mining development on land, which has the potential to provide significant long term economic and social benefits for communities.

The State Government will achieve a much more positive outcome if they were to sit down and talk to the Traditional Owners and negotiate for the future of Indigenous people in WA.

Within days of handballing Ministerial responsibility for Native Title back to the Premier, the WA Treasurer and Minister for Housing, Troy Buswell, has thrown a left hook at Aboriginal people by suggesting Native Title and heritage issues are holding up the provision of housing in remote communities.

Stephen Hall, the Chairperson of Australians for Native Title and Reconciliation in WA said: “The Minister is using the disadvantage faced by Aboriginal people in relation to the provision of housing to undermine their Native Title rights. This is sneaky politics that seeks to avoid negotiation by driving a truck through it. It seems the Minister wants to go back to a time when ‘terra nullius’ was the basis that government operated on. It is interventionist at its worst.”

This also follows recent parliamentary debate on the appointment of Peter Conran as the Director of Department of The Premier And Cabinet; Conran was John Howard’s principal advisor on Native Title.

“After Buswell saying no thanks to Premier Colin Barnett on responsibility for Native Title; next thing you know he is sinking in the boot in relation to Native Title claims. Buswell’s logic on this is consistent with the logic behind the Northern Territory Intervention. It’s also pretty ironic that this comes immediately after a man described in parliament last week as “a right-wing native title warrior” is made responsible for the administration of Government in WA.” said Mr Hall

I have read a number of reviews of this movie from US critics and overall they have panned it.  So I went along last night wondering if  producer Baz Luhrmann had really got it so wrong.  While not a particular fan of ‘epic style’ movies; i think the US critics got it wrong - not Baz - as they did not understand the story!   Sure it had the usual elements of a great saga: family, war,  action, along with a cattle station, a corrupt business rival and romance . Nevertheless, it was essentially a story about how Australia treated its Indigenous people for most of the last century.  It told the story of ‘drovers boys’, it showed that the ‘Stolen Generation’ was essentially about the abuse of Aboriginal women by white men, it showed the role of the police in child removal, it showed the role of the churches in running the institutions, it showed the various ways mothers tried to stop the removal, it displayed an element of the authorities dismissal of the feelings those mothers had for their children, it demonstrated the disregard some of those white fathers had for their children.  It also had some very strong symbolism and the roles played by two Aboriginal men - especially the grandfather figure - who gave it a real edginess.  In my view this film is a worthy successor to ‘Rabbit Proof Fence’; as it takes the story, to the next level.

The following in a transcript of an interview I did on Radio National  - Sunday 11 February  1996

Mick Dodson: Genocide is not just the physical destruction of a people. And Australia signed the Genocide Convention, I think that was in 1949. But genocide includes the forced removal of children from one group to another group. And the best answer, according to the authorities, depended on their being de-Aboriginalised, if you like, and made into non-indigenous people, made into white fellas if you like. That became official national policy in I think 1937, and it was the official policy up until - well in some jurisdictions up until the mid-80s.

Kirsten Garrett: The appalling truth is that it was the churches that practiced these evil policies. Not all of the churches all of the time, there are of course exceptions. But where did the policies to take the children away from the communities originate?

A former Executive Officer of the Anglican Social Responsibilities Mission in Western Australia, Stephen Hall.

Stephen Hall: Well it’s hard to know which led which, but I think the Government policies of assimilation, and the missionary vision which grew out of a fervour that saw the great stories of the missionaries in Africa and China and those kind of things, were stories that were around. But also there was the view of missionaries - it wasn’t just to Christianise or evangelise, but it was to make Aboriginal people more like us, which immediately laid them to falling into the trap of the assimilation policies of the day and being colluded and co-opted into that.

Kirsten Garrett: Yes, because the point’s been made to me a couple of times that the churches were only carrying out Government policy, they were not in a sense responsible. But at that time there was much less of a gap between church and State.

Stephen Hall: There’s two answers to this question: One, yes they were just delivering Government policy, but they weren’t doing it blindly, and the question of how they got into that position is something that needs to be addressed in the issue of Church and State. But the other thing is that as you say, Church and State were much closer then, and I actually thnink that people who were active in Church circles, were also active in government circles and to a degree there would have been people who were driving that policy who were active church leaders and active people in churches. So the links, I think, were very close.

Kirsten Garrett: The National Council of Churches to which every church belongs except the Lutherans and the Baptists, has written to the Inquiry, saying it will co-operate fully. But the Council says it will need outside funding to do so because the documents are scattered all over the country and not collated. It is beyond the present means of the National Council of Churches to get the documents together in a useful form, and it is unlikely that the churches will be able to make any formal submission before the Inquiry finishes at the end of the year.

Last year, Stephen Hall prepared a discussion paper for the Anglican Church in Western Australia. Stephen Hall is concerned that there may be sensitivities in some areas, of some of the church bureaucracies.

Stephen Hall: If churches are serious about justice, if churches are serious about reconciliation between Aboriginal Australia and non-Aboriginal Australia, they would have to face up to this issue fairly and squarely. I’m cautious though, because I know that there’s all kinds of history there that some people might not want to uncover, and I’m also very aware of how some churches responded to all the matters raised with the British child migration and institutionalisation, and they were very reluctant to address issues there, and this is a far bigger issue affecting far more children and people of course who are now adults.

Kirsten Garrett: Is there a fear in the churches that the things that will be uncovered might be things like sexual abuse or cruelty, or just policies that are no longer tenable?

Stephen Hall: Some of those issues have certainly been highlighted in the stories of some children that were institutionalised in church institutions; sexual abuse by staff or children of staff in some situations, I think that’s an issue, but also they were very harsh, strict regimes, and that’s fairly well accepted now that they were, and of course some churches may have difficulty facing up to that. And of course there is the whole question of the moral framework within which those institutions operated.

Kirsten Garrett: The moral framework of the churches is under scrutiny. Their practices reflected the paternalism that has been prevalent in all British colonies.

Stephen Hall: It’s difficult to talk about the church as a homogenous thing because as you said, there were all kinds of denominations and missionary societies and organisations involved, and to say the church did this, or did that, is very difficult of course because different things were done in different places and in different ways. But yes, I think the church did fall into the trap of assimilation into the idea that the Aboriginal race was dying out and that Aboriginal peoples’ blackness would be bred out of them. And there’s some classic speeches by A.O. Neville, who was the Chief Protector of Aboriginal people in Western Australia during that time, sort of saying whether it takes a hundred years or 150 years, there’s no reason why assimilation won’t work. I mean, they talk about children being snatched and put into institutions, and I think one of the things was not just to make them more like us as far as white, but was to Christianise or inculcate them with the theological dogmas and beliefs that those missionaries and people had at that time. And I think that mind-set is still around in some church organisations in how they deal with Aboriginal people as well.

Kirsten Garrett: It doesn’t end there. The churches, the discussion paper says, may also have to look into what money and assets they received to carry out their work.

Stephen Hall: There’s ample evidence around that churches and some missionary organisations that were non-denominational have profited through grants of land that were related to them running institutions for Aboriginal children. The Catholic Church in the north-west of W.A. has some significant holdings of land; the Anglican Church has lands around that were used in this practice that are still in control of the church; and benefit has been made out of those lands, and there were financial grants that were made - salaries, and all kinds of things like that - in institutions and missions that were run around the country.

Kirsten Garrett: When you raise these kinds of ideas in church circles, what sort of a response are you getting?

Stephen Hall: Well some people are quite excited and pleased that these kinds of issues are being raised, but they tend not to be the institutional people if you know what I mean - they tend to be the people who are concerned about issues and wanting them addressed, rather than the people who control the finances and the properties.

Kirsten Garrett: This is a real sleeper, a lit fuse. If the churches were given land that had been taken from Aboriginal people in the first place, where does that place them morally, now?

Australians for Native Title and Reconciliation (WA) and the Bringing Them Home Committee WA take this opportunity to write jointly to urge your party to adopt a policy to provide core funding for the establishment of a community based “Reconciliation secretariat” in Western Australia that would be a catalyst for major reconciliation initiatives here and would also act as a Western Australian arm of Reconciliation Australia, which is an independent, not for profit, national peak body.
Why this and why now?
1.      Leadership.  While there are a number of reconciliation events at a local community level and in various organisations across the state, there is a real vacuum in promoting reconciliation at a state wide level.  This sort of catalyst is fundamental to driving the momentum for a broadly based reconciliation movement.  It is critical that there is a centralized body that can promote reconciliation events, provide resources and training.
2.      Now is the time. A window has opened for Indigenous people and the wider community to move forward together. The National Apology has opened up possibilities for healing action and community mobilisation that we have not seen in this state for a long time.
3.      The networks are in place. ANTaR and BTH are both voluntary organisations who struggle to meet the growing requests from a range of people and organisations.  Being community based organisations, they are very much in touch with the needs as they emerge. This proposal leverages on those networks.
4.      The business community has shown the way. The minerals industry generally is making significant inputs to Indigenous communities through employment practises, which is their sphere. They are sharing their very considerable income from lands which were, since time immemorial, cared for and inhabited by Indigenous peoples. The State Government can match that intent in its own sphere.
5.      There has been a major commitment by the Commonwealth and COAG to closing the gap in relation to Aboriginal life expectancy.  Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal people can work shoulder to shoulder to ‘close the gap’. We need this office to build dialogue and action around the questions: What is Aboriginal work in closing the gap? What is non-Aboriginal work in closing the gap? What is shared work in closing the gap?  WA needs a community-based organisation with credibility that can operate across a range of community networks.  WA needs an organisation with a State-wide focus on reconciliation initiatives and priorities. 
6.      This would not be a new budget item. In their budget, the Department of Indigenous Affairs has been allocated $100 thousand p.a. to a reconciliation small grants scheme.  The Bringing Them Home committee is now commencing a small grants reconciliation scheme that will be funded by Lotterywest. In our view this frees the DIA money for an alternative reconciliation project in the area of greatest emerging need. While this is a relatively small allocation, it has the potential to be a base core funding.
7.      This proposal builds upon success. Sorry Days are growing in number around the state and in numbers in attendance.  ‘Yarning Circles’ for Stolen Generation members are attracting numbers between eight and sixty.  After the success of Reconciliation Action Plans in State and Federal Government Departments, there is scope for expanding the scheme to many church and community organisations. The major churches all crafted reconciliation strategies at the urging of Australians for Reconciliation’s WA office in the late 1990s which can be re-energised. These are concrete indicators of a new desire for Reconciliation in the general community.
8.      We understand that most other states have a centralized reconciliation body.  We believe that Western Australia’s lack of financial support for such a body is short sighted; it undervalues the social capital of the goodwill that exists in business, community organisations, the Indigenous network and the wider community. 
This letter seeks in principle agreement in the form of published written pre-election promise. Reconciliation WA would be a small secretariat which leveraged sound networks to harness considerable recent goodwill in a window of opportunity. It needs reliable funding to be established as a community hub, strong on communications and a significant contact point nationally.

That was the headline over a lead story in the West Australian newspaper on 7.7.08; the story ran over two pages and it was covered in the editorial. The West was reasonably balanced in it approach, unfortunately the government is not.

The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, Michelle Roberts, is considering closing Aboriginal communities; she was reported as saying "a Sustainable Indigenous Communities policy was investigating where money should be spent to promote sustainability."

However, further investigation shows the policy has not been written yet!  But it appears a ‘Taskforce’ to do the work has been established. The growing momentum towards this point over the last twelve months or so has been very concerning; it appears to be following on from Vanstone’s agenda and builds on the disastrous reforms of the CDEP. 

No doubt, the taskforce will meet and consider each community via some criteria that are carefully articulated in the yet to be written policy document. One would hope that the criteria includes actually going to the said communities and talking to the people concerned. People need to be involved in every community and outstation that is being considered; otherwise this smacks of being another government decision ‘for their own good’.

The process currently lacks transparency, which is really problematic when you consider it is potentially making major decisions over the future of people’s lives. This policy must be properly developed including a period where it is available for public comment. Otherwise, this becomes the inevitable broad brush response, to a few identified ‘problem communities’. It needs to be acknowledged that many remote communities and outstations function well. Clearly, this cannot consider and evaluate communities on only the basis of economic cost; but what other criteria are the bean counters going to use.  

This has the potential to be the third wave of dispossession and flies in the face of government policy to increase the population in areas like the Kimberley. It goes without saying that these people want to be on their country and history suggests this is principally a commitment to family, law and culture. People just want to get on with their lives.

This also has native title implications and will undoubtedly impact on other government policies like Aboriginal involvement in land care through Natural Resource Management.  Then again, maybe it is the next wave of dispossession; perhaps this is what the Deputy Premier, Eric Ripper, was getting at when talking about the communities on the Dampier Peninsular at the recent National Native Title conference in Perth.

There is an enormous diversity of communities in the remote areas of Western Australia; how can a Perth based taskforce of bureaucrats can understand this is they do not visit country and speak to the people concerned. It also should be noted that people also often live in communities because they want to get away from the towns that don’t really want them there!  Look at news reports about Broome from earlier this year as a case in point. Closing communities will push people into towns that are already not coping. This naturally brings to mind a point of comparison with similar sized white welfare towns, or towns that receive what is called ‘industry assistance’; one could well ask, “how come they continue to receive all kinds of government services and assistance?” 

This announcement by the Minister has ‘problems’ written all over it and it is definitely not the way to develop social policy. It is disturbing that the minister has announced this and tied it into economic indicators and an undefined, unwritten policy document.