AustLII Home | Databases | WorldLII | Search | Feedback

Aboriginal Law Bulletin

Aboriginal Law Bulletin (ALB)
You are here:  AustLII >> Databases >> Aboriginal Law Bulletin >> 1994 >> [1994] AboriginalLawB 27

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

Bimrose, Glenys --- "Alternative Governing Structures: Deed of Grant in Trust Communities, Mornington Island & Aurukun" [1994] AboriginalLawB 27; (1994) 3(68) Aboriginal Law Bulletin 13


Alternative Governing Structures:
Deed of Grant in Trust Communities, Mornington Island & Aurukun

by Glenys Bimrose

How can the Queensland government legislate to enable Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people to control and govern their own affairs in DOGIT Communities[1] throughout Queensland and the Shires of Aurukun and Mornington Island? These Communities are the legacy of mission settlements established early this century which have been managed by a succession of church and government administrations. In the 1970's and 1980's the government legislated to establish a Community Council/Shire Council model under the guise of self-management and self-determination.

This externally created and imported mainstream model of local government has not given Aboriginal and Tones Strait Islander people a real say in running their own affairs.

The Alternative Governing Structures Program is an attempt by the Queensland government to make a fresh start.

Failure of the present system

Recommendation 199 of the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody (RCIADIC), the Legislative Review Committee's Report, Towards Self-Government, and a 1991 Parliamentary Committee of Public Accounts Report recommend that government recognise the need for diverse organisational structures and arrangements which meet the particular requirements of individual Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Communities.

These reports comment on the legislative framework for 'self- management' by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people on Deed Of Grant In Trust (DOGIT) Communities throughout Queensland and the Shires of Aurukun and Mornington Island. The legislative framework comprises the Community Services (Aborigines) Act 1984 (Qld), the Community Services (Torres Strait) Act 1984 (Qld) and the Local Government (Aboriginal Land) Act 1978 (Qld).

A common theme throughout these reports is the failure of the present legislative framework to enable Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples to manage community affairs and deliver local government services to meet the needs of residents. The legislation prescribes a mainstream model of local government for the management of the community. The Community Management model and the Shire Council system were imposed without consultation with Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander peoples or due consideration to their indigenous cultural values and beliefs, decision-making practices, ways of doing business, political affiliations and social relationships within and across regions. Indeed, the people of Aurukun and Mornington Island fiercely resisted the imposition of the Shire Council model by the Bjelke-Petersen Govemment.[2]

The present model is characterised by a single dominant organisation, 'The Council'. Community Councils and the Mornington Island and Aurukun Shire Councils perform not only the functions of local government (water supply, airport maintenance, dog control, waste disposal and a democratically elected governance forum), but many other roles and responsibilities as diverse as community policing, the construction and management of housing, economic enterprises and income support through the Community Development Employment Program.

This complex bureaucratic system of local government demands a high level of skill and knowledge of staff and Councillors which is generally not within the cultural experience of the local indigenous population. Training programs have failed to equip local indigenous people with the relevant skills and knowledge to meaningfully participate in the system. This has entrenched the position of non-indigenous employees and reduced the meaningful input by indigenous people into decision-making.[3]

Representation on Council by democratic election is often like a lottery, which can actively undermine the real political groupings and decision-making practices in the local indigenous population. The recent local government elections in one Community, by accident rather than intent, resulted in no representative from the landowning groups for the township area being elected to Council.[4] Some indigenous people and family groups, however, have been able to access and use the present local government system to meet their own needs.

Many government agencies prefer to conduct business with one organisation (the Council) rather than having to identify and locate appropriate indigenous people. Such government practice encourages the perception that Councils are able to be everything to everyone and to speak on behalf of all community members regarding all business with outsiders. This further entrenches the position of non-indigenous staff and those indigenous people who are able to negotiate the present system of Council/Shire administration.

Past and present government legislation, policy and practice, therefore, has not only imposed an inappropriate model for local govermrient on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Communities, but has entrenched particular groups with a vested interest in maintaining the status quo.

A new legislative framework

Individual communities report varying levels of difficulty in making these local government systems meet the needs of residents. Some have indicated the present system requires major restructuring to develop appropriate alternative governing structures suitable to their regional context, others intend to 'start again', whereas one or two communities have expressed a commitment to fine-tuning the present Community Council model.

It is clear that a new legislative framework is required which is not imposed and is flexible enough to accommodate different types of arrangements for the management and governance of community affairs by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. The question then arises how to develop this new legislative framework?

Anne Warner, Minister for Family Services and Aboriginal and Islander Affairs, has described the Queensland Government's commitment to legislative reform as a 'bottom-up' process: new legislation will be drafted after Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples have had the opportunity to plan and develop their own local and regional systems for managing and governing their affairs.

How, then, can the Government support and assist Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples to develop their own alternative and appropriate local governance and management systems?

The Queensland Government acknowledges the severe limitations of adapting models from other states or countries to the Queensland Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Community context. Experience has shown that adapting models, despite the best intentions, usually ends up being more about the community changing to fit the model than the model being adapted to fit the unique needs and conditions of the community. This is strikingly evidenced in the physical layout of Communities. In Aurukun, the Shire Council has applied mainstream town planning principles to create straight rows and columns of residential block houses. Yet informally within this suburban layout, Aurukun people have made their own use of space. Individuals generally occupy houses according to family networks and regional cultural affiliations such that inland groups occupy housing towards the eastern end of town. However, most Aurukun people report a high level of dissatisfaction with these housing arrangements [5]

A community development planning approach

The Alternative Governing Structures Program has developed an approach which aims to assist people to create their own governance and management arrangements to suit `individual community contexts. The approach is based on Community Development Planning, an, approach recommended by the RCIADIC.[6] Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in DOGIT Communities and the Shires of Aurukun and Mornington Island are encouraged and assisted to plan for the future development of their families and communities. The development of appropriate alternative governing structures is grounded in the tangible issues of everyday life and the development process is controlled by the people who are affected by the present local government model.

The establishment of alternative governing structures by people planning for their future development can be conceptualised via four interdependent phases:

(i) Community Development Planning by individual communities to develop their own alternative governing structures;
(ii) Implementation of individual community plans for alternative governing structures;
(iii) Drafting new legislation from the community plans; and
(iv) Ongoing resourcing and monitoring of the new governing structures.

The first phase involves indigenous people in each community planning how they want to live their lives to achieve the goals and aspirations they have for themselves and their families. The alternative ways of governing and managing community affairs are created from the planning people are doing for their own future social, economic, political, environmental and cultural development.

The specific arrangements for each planning project are developed by family groupings, Council, community organisations and Department of Family Services and Aboriginal and Islander Affairs (DFSAIA) staff to suit the unique needs and conditions of each community. Program funds are used to resource planning projects.

Two Communities have developed project arrangements which recognise the family as the basic political and decisionmaking unit in their regions. They have selected planning consultants to work with family and clan groups so people can have input into running affairs such as housing, the possession and consumption of alcohol and outstation development. Each family group will be able to develop its own future development plan. Comprehensive community management and governance plans are being developed from the family plans. The planning consultants facilitate negotiation between stakeholders to reach agreement on common issues and resources.

The second phase is the implementation of the community plans for alternative governing structures. Program funds are available to resource these activities. Critical to this stage are the changes to government policy and practice which are required for the community plans to be implemented.

In some cases the existing legislative framework will be adequate to facilitate the implementation of particular sections of the new systems. The establishment of a community-based housing organisation is one example. However, in most Communities new legislation will be required to enable the alternative governing arrangements to be implemented in their entireity.

The third phase is the drafting of new legislation to facilitate the implementation of alternative governing and community management arrangements developed by each community. New legislation will need to be drafted to address generic issues arising from the community plans for alternative governing structures - a bottom-up' process.

The fourth phase is the ongoing resourcing and monitoring of the implementation of new legislation and community management plans for alternative governing structures. Modifications to the developing systems will be made as new issues emerge over time.

More about the methodology

A community development planning approach to the establishment of alternative governing structures involves, as decision-makers, the people directly affected by the present systems of local government - the same people who will have to make the new systems work effectively. It offers people a means of moving from the present system to ways of managing and governing family and community business which suits their current and future lifestyles. The task of creating alternative governing structures can seem overwhelming in terms of where to start and how to proceed.

Planning by the people of Aurukun has demonstrated that it does not matter where the planning starts as long as the issues are identified by the people and are of great concern to them. Issues impacting on community life are interdependent, so planning for one issue leads to planning in other areas. For example, planning for housing invariably involves dialogue and decisions about the location, design, construction, maintenance and management of housing. These decisions are informed by people talking about their goals and aspirations for how they want to live their lives and where they want to live.

The dialogue also draws in infrastructure issues including appropriate technology, transport and communications, waste disposal and access to health and educational services. Making decisions about housing brings land ownership and management issues to the fore. This dialogue leads to people questioning how to manage housing and make policies in order to have the sort of housing they desire. Planning for a single issue such as housing, in a manner that considers the personal needs and aspirations of people, therefore leads to planning for the comprehensive development of the community and the creation of alternative governing structures.

Planning outcomes are implemented as they arise, wherever possible, whilst further planning continues. For instance, as family groups in the Aurukun region plan new ways of making housing management decisions, these are followed up as soon as they are agreed upon. However, significant resistance to change has been encountered during the planning and implementation phases in some Aboriginal communities. Both nonAboriginal and Aboriginal people who have a vested interest in maintaining the present model of local government have actively resisted changes to the way the community is run. These changes have come out of the planning activities which have given Aboriginal people a say in running family and community affairs - people who have historically been locked out of the decision making practices of the Council Office.

For example, the Aurukun Shire Council initially lobbied for family-based planning to occur so the Shire would know what sort of housing Aurukun people needed. Outcomes from the housing planning by family groups were essentially about reducing the role of the Shire regarding housing construction and management. However, the Shire Administration has sought to continue to play a key rule in housing management.

Such resistance to change has been addressed by negotiation. At the community level planning consultants and DFSAIA staff facilitate Aboriginal people to negotiate amongst themselves to reach some agreement. DFSAIA staff liaise with government agencies to inform them of the planning outcomes as they arise and to discuss the implications for policy and practice. Planning consultants facilitate negotiations between Aboriginal people and government agencies to effect appropriate policies and practice by government that enable Aboriginal people to run their own affairs, thereby putting their plans for alternative governing structures into practice. For example, the compromise reached by family groups and the Aurukun Shire Council has been to split the current housing allocation evenly between the Shire and a new Homeland Resource Agency which would be responsible for housing outside the town area.

This example demonstrates the sensitive and political nature of the planning and negotiation processes. It highlights the need for planning consultants to remain involved throughout all phases of the community development process to enable people to successfully put their plans for alternative governing structures into practice. This will require an injection of additional government funds into the Alternative Governing Structures Program.

It is also critical that government recognise the connection between vested interests and maintenance of the status quo. A co-ordinated government response to supporting the planning outcomes and an increased commitment by government agencies to negotiate with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples is crucial. The ongoing liaison and co-ordination role of DFSAIA staff in the Alternative Governing Structures Program is integral to achieving these changes to government policy and practice, and this role needs to be strengthened. These actions will go a long way toward making sense of the strange juxtaposition of having one government program aiming to empower people through running their own affairs, when the constraints to this are largely the result of past and present government legislation, policy and practice.

Implementing planning outcomes as they arise makes the planning process action- and change-oriented. Being involved in doing something a different way, rather than just talking about doing it differently, and in a way that people control and direct, is empowering. The experience encourages people to think creatively - to transcend 'the way things are done now' in order to declare 'this is our way!' Action-oriented planning, therefore, helps overcome resistance to change that has to do with the place of precedence in Aboriginal culture and the historical experience of Aboriginal people participating tokenistically in local government decision-making practices.

Emergent trends and issues

Communities are at different stages of planning for alternative governing structures since the program was initiated in the latter half of 1993. Planning by the people of Aurukun is well underway and they are already implementing new arrangements, whereas other communities have yet to commence planning. Whilst it is too early to describe the alternative local systems, the following issues and trends have emerged from planning and negotiation activities to date, but do not necessarily apply across all communities:

Conclusion

Appropriate alternative governing structures and the requisite legislative framework, therefore, are being created from the goals, visions and aspirations indigenous people have for themselves and their families. In the words of a man planning for his family to return permanently to his country:

I speak from my heart when I say this is the way I want to see my children and my children's children living. It won't happen overnight ... but we are on the right track.

The Alternative Governing Structures Program however, will only remain on the right track if the strong community-based focus of the program is maintained. Also critical is an increased government commitment to actively supporting the implementation of the outcomes of the community development planning projects. This involves government agencies negotiating change to legislation, policy and practice with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people and providing adequate financial support. Is government committed to supporting this journey from the heart?


[1] Deed of Grant in Trust Communities are communities where land is held in perpetual trust by the Community Council for use by community residents under the Community Services (Aboriginal) Act 1984 (Qld)and the Canmmnity Services (Torres Strait) Act 1984 (Qld).

[2] Leveridge, V., & Lea, D., Aurukun Today, A Report to ATSIC,1992; Martin, D.F., Background Paper on Social and Family Facers far the Aurukun Case, A Report to the RCIADIC, 1988 ; Sutton, P., Submission to the Legislative Review Committee on behalf of Aurukun ShireCouncil, 1990.

[3] Tatz, C., 'Race Politics in Australia' in Aborigines, Politics and Law, University of New England Publishing Unit, 1979.

[4] Personal communication between DFSAIA staff and Community members.

[5] Adams, J., Castelain, J., & Martin, D., Report One - Aurakun Community Development Planning Project, 1994.

[6] Recommendation 204 of the RCIADIC.


AustLII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback
URL: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/AboriginalLawB/1994/27.html