Issue Brief 25 / 1997

CAEPR has recently made two submissions to an inquiry of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs (HRSCATSIA) into greater autonomy for 'the people of the Torres Strait'. These submissions, which are also available as CAEPR Discussion Papers Nos 121 and 132, outline two approaches to greater autonomy.

A regional approach

The first submission has a strong regional focus and examines both the political and economic dimensions of potential developments.

On the political side, it discusses development towards a more fully-fledged form of Torres Strait regional government; beyond the current Torres Strait Regional Authority (TSRA), Island Coordinating Council and Torres Shire Council. This regional government would, however, still be built on the existing individual local Island Council structures. The submission also pays some attention to the desires of Torres Strait Islanders living away from the Strait to be involved in Strait affairs. These desires are not accommodated under the current structures, but could be under some more fully-fledged form of regional government.

On the economic side, this first submission examines regional resource flows in fishing, tourism, retailing and transport, as well as the public services sector. It suggests how these may be developed in the future and also how control over them may be renegotiated.

Finally, the first submission identifies national and international comparisons for developments towards greater autonomy in Torres Strait. It argues that the Australian external territories of Norfolk, Christmas and Cocos-Keeling Islands, the relationship between the Cook Islands and New Zealand and the development of Nunavut in northern Canada can all be drawn on as useful models, but that none provides a ready-made solution.

A National Torres Strait Islanders Commission?

In contrast to the primarily regional focus of DP No. 121, DP No. 132 focuses on reform possibilities relating to all Torres Strait Islanders, Australia wide. It focuses, in particular, on the idea of a national Torres Strait Islanders Commission separated from the existing Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission (ATSIC). This involves a quite different interpretation of the phrase 'the people of the Torres Strait', equating it essentially with all Torres Strait Islanders.

This second paper was written partly in response to Islander submissions to the HRSCATSIA. In these submissions, Islanders were predominantly focusing on greater autonomy for Torres Strait Islanders as a cultural group, Australia wide, rather than greater autonomy for the Torres Strait region. This had not been CAEPR's initial interpretation of the HRSCATSIA's terms of reference, but it was a legitimate interpretation which deserved further exploration in the light of Islander submissions. The second CAEPR submission argues that a Torres Strait Islanders Commission separated from ATSIC and covering all Torres Strait Islanders Australia wide is a real possibility. However, it also cautions that development towards such a Commission could raise some significant and difficult issues. Primary among these would be representation and funding issues between Torres Strait Islanders living in the Strait and those living elsewhere. For while Torres Strait Islanders speak frequently of their cultural 'oneness', they are also aware of differences in the circumstances, and numbers, of those living in the Strait and those living elsewhere (see Table).

Several Islander submissions to the HRSCATSIA express ideas about equal representation on a national Torres Strait Islanders Commission for Islanders resident in the Strait and Islanders resident elsewhere. DP No. 132 suggests that, within these ideas, there are the makings of a reasonable solution to representation issues on a national Torres Strait Islanders Commission. It also suggests that funding issues for a Torres Strait Islanders Commission may likewise be able to be resolved if some longer-term commitment on the division of funds between these two sections of the Islander population is included in enabling legislation. Other more minor issues which are raised in relation to the possible development of a Torres Strait Islanders Commission relate to organisational scale, dual identification of some people as both Torres Strait Islander and Aboriginal, and the position of Aboriginal people in Torres Strait.

Torres Strait Islander Population, 1991

Reforming ATSIC and the TSRA

Because of the significant and difficult issues that movement towards a Torres Strait Islander Commission would be likely to raise, the second CAEPR submission also identifies another reform possibility, either as an interim measure on the way towards a separate Commission or as a longer-term alternative. This other possibility is better representation and funding arrangements within ATSIC and the TSRA for Torres Strait Islanders resident outside the Strait. Which of these reform possibilities to pursue is a matter for Torres Strait Islanders. The authors suggest a national convention of Torres Strait Islanders to take the matter further.

Linking approaches

While reforms relating to all Torres Strait Islanders and to the Torres Strait region are logically distinct, there are practical reasons for relating each to the other. For example, were reforms proceeding relating to all Torres Strait Islanders, the need for Torres Strait Islanders resident outside Torres Strait to have a role in moves towards Torres Strait regional government would be far less than otherwise. The issues raised by these two approaches to greater autonomy for 'the people of the Torres Strait' need, therefore, to be considered together.

This issue brief summarised CAEPR Discussion Papers No. 121, 'Towards greater autonomy for Torres Strait: political and economic dimensions' by J.C. Altman, W.S. Arthur and W. Sanders in 1996; and No. 132, 'A Torres Strait Islanders Commission? Possibilities and issues' by W. Sanders and W.S. Arthur in 1997. It was prepared by Will Sanders and edited by Hilary Bek.