Course:CONS370/Projects/Indigenous involvement in the management and governance of the Torres Strait Islands: A case study of the Torres Strait Islanders

From UBC Wiki

Add your summary here

Description

The flag of the Torres Strait Islanders.

This case study focuses on the Torres Strait Islanders. They are a group of First Peoples with a distinct identity, history, language, and culture. They are of Melanesian origin and have occupied Australia for at least 2,500 years[1][2]. Islanders are from the Islands of the Torres Strait (named after the explorer Vaez de Torres in 1606) located between Cape York and Papua New Guinea[2]. The 100 Torres Strait Islands are surrounded by the Coral Sea and the Arafura Sea[3]. Separation of the islands allowed for 18 diverse Islander communities which occupy 17 unique islands[3]. Historically, the Peoples inhabited a larger range of islands and were not considered to be homogeneous until inter-island church meetings initiated by settlers encouraged unity[4]. The main languages spoken by the Islanders are Kala Lagaw Ya, Meriam Mir, and Torres Strait Kriol, where approximately 20 languages remain near extinct[3][1].

Prior to European settlement in 1863, the Islanders practiced agriculture, hunting, gardening, and fishing. The Islands were generally specialized in hunting, agriculture, and/or fishing, which enabled good trade between the communities and made for good sailors and navigators[3]. Islanders also enjoyed trading pearl shell, turtle shell, feathers, canoes, and tools[2]. Around the 1870’s, the abundance of pearls found around the Torres Strait Islands were discovered by the European settlers[4]. This attracted many foreigners who then raided the islands for food and women during their stay[4]. To provide fuel for steam-powered vessels used during the Pearl rush, most of the Islands’ trees were cut down[4].

Islander culture became heavily influenced by the missionaries' arrival in 1871, from hybridized religion and music[3]. Colonialism also brought smallpox and measles that wiped out entire tribes in order to make way for European development. In 1879, the Islands were designated as Crown land and were annexed to the Colony of Queensland[4]. The Torres Strait Islanders then became Australian citizens at Federation, however with significantly fewer rights[4]. As of 2010, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders make up 2.5% of the total Australian population[3]. Of that 2.5%, only 6% of that group are Torres Strait Islanders, essentially they are a minority within a minority[3][4].

Permanently Inhabited Torres Strait Islands[4]

Torres Strait Islanders on Darnley, Hammond Island in 1931.

Each nation had its own name: Saibailgal (Top Western Islanders), Maluilgal (Mid-Western Islanders), Kaurareg (Lower Western Islanders), Kulkalgal (Central Islanders) and Meriam Le (Eastern Islanders)[4].

  • Mulgrave Island
  • Talbot, Mt Cornwallis Island
  • Darnley, Hammond Island
  • Jervis, Yorke Island
  • Murray, Banks Island
  • Prince of Wales Island
  • Horn Island
  • Coconut Island
  • Saibai Island
  • Stephens Island
  • Thursday Island
  • Sue Island
  • Turtle-Backed Island

Tenure arrangements

For decades, the Torres Strait Islanders struggled to obtain ownership rights to the lands they resided on. However, the 1992 Mabo v. Queensland (No. 2) ruling was in their favour, causing a shift in Australia’s understanding of Indigenous land ownership. In Mabo v. Queensland (No. 2), Australia’s High Court legally recognized Indigenous occupation of lands prior to British colonization[5]. After this recognition, the 1993 Native Title Act was passed, providing Indigenous groups the opportunity to apply for Native Title to lands. As of December 31st 2014, over 27% of Australia was reassigned as Native Title, with 249 more applications under negotiation[5]. Although the Native Title Act is accepted across Australia, it simply acts as a gesture of goodwill, recognizing prior Indigenous land rights[6]. The 1991 Torres Strait Islander Land Act on the other hand, is a regional Act specific to Queensland that allows freehold claims to land by the Torres Strait Islander communities[7]. The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples Recognition Act of 2013 also recognizes Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders as the first inhabitants of Australia[8].

Map of Queensland, Australia. In present day, only 5% of this land is occupied as freehold ownership by the Torres Strait Islanders.

Currently (2020), approximately 5% of the land tenure in Queensland is under freehold ownership by the Torres Strait Islanders[9]. Although the 1991 Torres Strait Islander Land Act provides the Islander communities with greater ownership rights and freedoms over their lands, many restrictions still apply[9]. Once the Torres Strait Islanders claim land under the 1991 Land Act, it becomes an ‘inalienable freehold’. This means that the Islanders can not sell, transfer or mortgage the land. The Islanders can still lease the land, however certain restrictions will apply[7]. Further, once the Torres Strait Islander communities obtain freehold ownership of their land under the Torres Strait Islander Land Act, they must forego any pre-existing Native Title claims to that land[9]. This means that they can only choose one; either Native Title or freehold claim to the land. The Queensland government[7] also has complete control over the minerals and petroleum and partial ownership over the quarry and forest products on the claimed lands. These exceptions to Torres Strait Islanders' freehold land tenure shows that the Queensland government, and Australian government as a whole, need to make changes for greater Indigenous control over their customary and legally-owned lands.

Another form of land tenure referred to as the Aboriginal Deed of Grant in Trust (DOGIT) also exists in Queensland. In this land tenure, the Torres Strait Islander government owns the DOGIT through a collective title as opposed to the aforementioned individual land ownership. Like individual freehold ownership, DOGITs cannot be sold and unfortunately, all DOGITs are currently in the process of being converted to freehold land[7].

Administrative arrangements

During the early 1990s, there was a growing push for Indigenous autonomy over the Torres Strait Island region[8]. In 1994, the Torres Strait Regional Authority (TSRA) administrative body was established as a response to these demands. The TSRA was established under the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission Act 1989, now referred to as the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander (ATSI) Act 2005[9]. The TSRA acts as the main administrative body over the Torres Strait Islands. Further, the main goal of the TSRA is “to improve the lifestyle and well-being of the Torres Strait Islander and Aboriginal people living in the Torres Strait region”[9]. To achieve this goal, the TSRA aims to[10]:

  • improve public recognition of Indigenous rights, customs and identity
  • help improve quality of life for people living in the region
  • create a sustainable economy
  • improve health and community services
  • protect the region’s environment
  • assert Native Title over the Torres Strait region’s lands and water

Altogether, the TSRA is made up of two arms; the elected arm and the administrative arm. The TSRA 'Charter of Representation, Performance and Accountability' works to ensure a seamless interaction between the elected and administrative arms[11].

The elected arm

The elected arm is composed of 20 individuals, 18 of whom are elected from the Community Services (Torres Strait) Act 1984 and two of whom are elected under the ATSI Act 2005. The 18 members make up the Island Coordinating Council (ICC) and act as regional representatives for the Islanders[11]. However, because the ICC members are not elected directly into the TSRA, some worry about the transparency and democracy behind their election. Further, some argue that there is significant overlap between the main duties assigned to the TSRA and to the ICC members which leads to unnecessary duplication of work and over-regulation. The elections of new members into the TSRA occur every three years and are limited to Torres Strait Islander and Aboriginal individuals that reside in the Torres Strait regions[11]. Overall, the main duties of the elected arm are to review, create and implement policies that benefit the Torres Strait communities[10].

The administrative arm

In the administrative arm, the TSRA General Manager leads a group of staff in the Statutory Agency. The TSRA is able to delegate the majority of its duties and powers to the General Manager, who is then able to delegate these tasks to their staff unless instructed otherwise. The Minister for Indigenous Affairs appoints the General Manager who then stays in the role for up to five years. Overall, the General Manager is responsible for the TSRA’s day-to-day affairs and finances[11].

The TSRA also has strong ties with the Australian federal government. The federal Parliament provides the TSRA with the majority of its funding. In the 2005 to 2006 fiscal year, the TSRA had a total income of AUS $56.6 million, with the federal government contributing AUS $53.7 million of this income[11].

Under the TSRA, the Torres Strait Island Regional Council (TSIRC), Torres Shire Council (TSC) and Northern Peninsula Area Regional Council (NPARC) hold local-level administrative duties, each governing a distinct selection of islands in the Torres Strait[8]. Of the three councils, the TSIRC is the largest, governing over 15 communities in the Torres Strait. The TSIRC implements facilities, services and local-level laws that help improve the environment, well-being, economy and culture of the region. Like the TSRA, the TSIRC holds an elected arm and administrative arm as well. The elected arm consists of the elected Mayor and elected Councillors, who also have an Advisory Board composed of members of the public. The administrative arm consists of the Chief Executive Officer and other staff who implement local policies, laws and inform Councillors on any further developments[12]. The TSC and NPARC hold similar administrative arrangements over their dedicated regions also with the main objective to serve their members to the best of their ability[13][14].

Overall, administration over the Torres Strait Islands is done through the coordination of regional, state and federal level bodies. The regional bodies include the TSIRC, TSC and NPARC, all of which are councils that aim to advocate for their representative islands. The TSRA represents the state, performing administrative duties for every island in the Torres Strait region. Further, the federal Parliament provides the TSRA with the main bulk of their funding. The federal government funds the TSRA, which then distributes this money into each subsequent council (TSIRC, TSC, NPARC). This process of funding follows a top-down approach to administration. At the regional level, some new laws and policies can be implemented without state or federal-level approval. However, if a policy requires federal approval, this will follow a bottom-up approach from regional councils to the TSRA then to the federal government.

Affected Stakeholders

Values

The affected actors in this case study are the Torres Strait Islanders. The Torres Strait Islanders value kinship and reciprocity, health, land and sea rights, identity, education, and resource management[4]. Health is an increasing concern for Torres Strait Islanders as ¼ of their adult population has diabetes and on average live 15 years less than the average Australian[4]. Most Torres Strait Islanders value sea rights as much as land rights as several Native Title Tribunal court cases involves sea rights[4]. Education is often a source of emigration as opportunities on the islands are poor. Islanders were not accepted into high schools until 1964[4]. Schools were strictly taught in English with a lack of cultural awareness training for teachers until the early 2000's[4]. As many Islanders have emigrated away from their homeland they value and struggle with identity[4]. They also show pride in their island's unique culture, apart from the pan-Islander identity[4]. Resource management is a very important aspect of independence, control, and identity for islanders[4]. This requires the Islanders to have a more stable government system[4].

By restricting access and rights to natural resource management on their traditional territory, the government agencies are negatively impacting the Peoples’ social, cultural, and environmental benefits[15]. Socially, the Peoples benefit from the generation of meaningful work opportunities and skills development, increased sense of community pride, and better educational outcomes for the old and young members[15]. Culturally, natural resource management helps with inter-generational knowledge transmission, and a sense of identity[15]. The environmental benefits of the Islanders’ involvement includes invasive species control, protection of species at risk and biodiversity, and greenhouse gas mitigation[15].

Aboriginal Forestry

Prior to European contact, the Torres Strait Islanders and Aboriginal Peoples were heavily dependent on forest and marine resources[15]. A value that remains today is the protection of the sacred forest sites, which contained strong cultural connections[15]. The NSW (New South Wales) Forestry Commission has instituted a forest management system that encourages partnerships, access for cultural activities, cultural awareness training, and job availability[15]. Unfortunately, the job opportunities are often temporary positions and the Islanders are forced to accept training-level wages, whether they are well-qualified or not[15]. The Torres Strait Islanders have focused on tourism, pearl cultivation, market gardens, and sawmills[4]. Although some efforts have been successful, most have failed as a result of changes in government policy or a lack of support[16]. Sometimes projects fail due to project leaders’ abandonment and the failure to provide a replacement with adequate knowledge[16]. When the skills and knowledge required to meet Torres Strait Islander goals are not transferred properly, projects fail and participation declines[16].

Rights and Relative Power

In 1990, the ATSIC (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission) made up of elected Indigenous People, was established to determine supplementary Indigenous programs, monitoring services provided by government agencies, and advising higher levels of government on Indigenous issues[1]. In 2004, these rights were transferred to mainstream government departments[1]. There are currently government programs in place to help support the disadvantaged members of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders, such as the Aboriginal Medical Services and Aboriginal Legal Services, as well as the Community Development Projects Scheme (CDEP)[1]. Torres Strait Islanders were treated historically with more respect and rights than the Aboriginal Peoples as they were considered superior by the Europeans[3]. The Aboriginal Peoples were subject to town curfews, alcohol bans, low wages, and the placement of children in foster homes, while the Torres Strait Islanders were not[1]. In Queensland, self-management policies were implemented in 1975 which allowed for the Torres Strait communities to manage government projects[1]. Although they appear to have power in this scenario, Islanders can only manage projects designed by the government and without much input[1].

Interested Outside Stakeholders

Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs)

Australians for Native Title and Reconciliation (ANTaR)

Since 1997, ANTaR has worked alongside Torres Strait Island communities with the purpose “to engage, educate [and] advocate for justice, rights and respect for Australia’s First Peoples”[17]. ANTaR works towards their mission through advocacy initiatives, lobbying and campaigns, to name a few. One of ANTaR’s current campaigns is to defend and strengthen Native Title land rights[18]. For this initiative, ANTaR is working to strengthen the impact that Native Title land claims have on the social, cultural and economic development of Torres Strait communities. Further, ANTaR aims to inform Islanders about the benefits of claiming Native Title to their lands because currently, many of them are unaware or uneducated about the potential benefits of this titleship. Alongside this, ANTaR also has campaigns to decrease Indigenous incarceration rates, improve wage equality and more[18].

Although ANTaR is a nationally recognized non-governmental organization, it also has state and regional divisions that work closely with their specific community’s needs. For example, the Path to Treaty is an ANTaR campaign based in Queensland with the purpose to reframe the role of Torres Strait Islander communities on the land. ANTaR Qld[18] is looking to educate non-Indigenous folks in the process, and further share any progress from the Path to Treaty with ANTaR’s national branch[19]. As a result of ANTaR’s establishment at national, state and regional levels, it is able to hold significant power as a reputable NGO that protects the rights, freedoms and initiatives of Torres Strait Islanders.

Kailag Enterprises

Kailag Enterprises is a small charity group founded in 2008 that helps Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders. Kailag Enterprises now operates a sponge aquaculture farm around Masig Island[20]. Sponges have ecological and economic importance to Torres Strait Islanders and Australia. It has proven challenging to protect the farm from marine traffic and those who are unaware of the sites[20]. There is often conflict with prawn fishery vessels and the protection of the aquaculture farm, employees, and infrastructure[20]. Many prawn fishery vessels are owned by Islanders in addition to several commercial fisheries like the Torres Strait Prawn Fishery (TSPF)[21]. The fishery is the largest and most important in the Torres Strait and operates approximately 70 vessels[21].

The dugong, a species that has been hunted by Torres Strait Islanders for over 4,000 years.

Research organizations

The Reef and Rainforest Research Centre, Sea Turtle Foundation, and the Australian Centre for Tropical Fisheries Research are all interested stakeholders when it comes to natural resource management around the Torres Strait Islands. A species of high biodiversity value called the dugong (Dugong dugon), is located around Queensland and the Torres Strait Islands. It is vital to protect what is left of the dugong's natural range as they are at risk of extinction according to the IUCN[22]. Torres Strait Islanders value dugongs for their nutritional, cultural, and economic significance. Dugong hunting has been practiced by Islanders for an estimated 4,000 years. The 1985 Treaty between Australia and Papua New Guinea outlines Article 22 where the harvest of dugong by Torres Strait Islanders is legal as a part of traditional livelihoods in the Protected Zone[22]. Dugongs and sea turtles also have spiritual values that play important roles in ceremonies. Sea turtles have also been a delicacy of the Torres Strait Islanders. however populations have been in decline. This is an issue for research organizations as they wish to research and protect dugongs and sea turtles against over-harvesting[22]. It is still undetermined whether cultural harvesting of sea turtles and dugong will be sustainable[22].

The Forest Stewardship Council logo.

Forest Stewardship Council (FSC)

The FSC is a world recognized, non-governmental council that ensures forest management practices that follow a locally-adapted global standard[23]. Generally speaking, the standard outlines forest management that promotes environmental conservation, provides societal benefits, is economically viable and recognizes Indigenous values. Although it is optional for a company to obtain FSC certification, the certification acts as a ‘stamp of approval’ or confirmation that the company’s actions are humane and fair[23].

The only FSC that operates in Australia is known as the Australian National Standard. When a company is certified under the Australian National Standard, the company is confirmed to have followed the FSC framework for responsible forest management[23]. The FSC Australia framework outlines the protection of Indigenous sacred sites, the proper assessment and management of old growth forests, endangered species and waterways, and the Free, Prior, and Informed Consent (FPIC) of stakeholder groups. The FSC Australia framework also recognizes Torres Strait Islanders as the first stewards of the lands and as part of their efforts to reconciliation, have created a detailed Reconciliation Action Plan. FSC Australia further created an Indigenous Working Group (IWG) to ensure Indigenous involvement during the implementation of the Australian National Standard and the Reconciliation Action Plan[23].  

Australian Government

Objectives and Role

Australia's federal government plays a critical role in terms of encouraging Torres Strait community engagement since they have the power to establish and enforce laws in the public and private sector. To promote the political voices and involvement of the Torres Strait community, the government needs to design a well-structured policy framework to ensure the rights, culture, and tenure of the Torres Strait Peoples and that they are well respected and distributed fairly. Over the past few decades, the government has dedicated projects and legislation to improve the political position of Torres Strait Islanders and to support their culture and land ownership.

Employment arrangements in bureaucracy

To improve the participation of the Torres Strait Islanders during decision making, the Australian government has increased Islander employment opportunities in government bureaucracy [24]. The government has made efforts to invite Torres Strait Islanders to take up public sector roles and to ensure the number of Islander employees are maintained at a reasonable level[25]. This provides Torres Strait Islanders with the opportunity to emphasize their opinions on tenure distribution, social development, and cultural values. The intention of this arrangement is to provide Torres Strait Islanders with the opportunity to express their demands; resulting in a positive outcome for both the government and the Islanders[26] .

National Indigenous Forestry Strategy (NIFS)

The National Indigenous Forestry Strategy (NIFS) was established in 2005 under the consultation between Torres Strait Islanders, Indigenous communities and forest industry stakeholders[27] . The key objective of this policy is to promote sustainable forestry development while establishing a cooperative management system with the forest products industry and the First Peoples of Australia[16]. Under this strategy, resource sustainability is the top priority, with recognition of the importance of Indigenous forestry practices and guidelines that all projects must follow legal and administrative rules[27]. This policy allows the Australian government to facilitate the social and economic growth of Torres Strait communities while establishing business opportunities with forest and wood product companies.

Private Industries

Large amounts of logging occurred during the Pearl rush in 1870 to make room for ships[4]. After the rush, there was not much incentive to continue large-scale harvesting in the Torres Strait Islands, as the remaining harvestable trees are very dispersed and would incur higher costs for harvest and transport. Large-scale mills only began to close between 2006 to 2011[28]. This were also no new investments in plantations and low demand for wood products[28].

Discussion

As the nation’s original owner of the territories, Torres Strait Islanders have historically sustained the well-being of Australia’s forests and continue to hold this role through their traditional knowledge of the lands, waters, and culture. This case study examines Torres Strait Islanders' involvement in decision-making processes, how their political voices have changed and how they are supported by different social sectors. Based on our assessment of the interested stakeholders groups, there have been many efforts to improve Torres Strait engagement in management and policy-making processes. Some arrangements in the NGO sector have been successful. however, some legislative arrangements still require improvements.

Successes

ANTaR and FSC both hold relatively high power at local scales, therefore, they have both had a positive impact on greater empowerment of the Torres Strait communities. Further, because ANTaR and FSC are both composed of a diverse group of members and stakeholders, it allows these organizations a wide range of perspectives and ideas during the decision making process. ANTaR's goal to advocate on behalf of Torres Strait Islanders allows other groups to perceive these Islanders as greater equals. However, because ANTaR and FSC are not directly affiliated with the Australian government, they experience much less power at a national level in comparison to government bodies.

Failures

The Australian government's idea to create more employment opportunities for Torres Strait Islanders is out of good intention, but hidden pressures in the bureaucratic system block their voices being taken seriously[29]. Ganter[29] points out that sometimes, the Torres Strait employees will hold a position with very little decision making power simply so that the government can fill their quota. Therefore, even though there has been an increase in Torres Strait employees in the federal government, they still have very little say in the government processes.

Ideally, the NIFS would have provided Indigenous and Torres Strait communities with a greater political voice. Instead, the Islanders were not given this voice and the NIFS further failed to create an equal and fair relationship between Torres Strait communities and the wood products industry[16]. The NIFS can be said to have failed in its mission due to its lack of a durable policy framework and its lack of support from the government. The private industries also hold minimal political power, and find it challenging to cooperate with governments due to their limitations in funding and resources[30].

Conflicts

The Torres Strait Treaty

The Torres Strait Treaty is a bilateral agreement between Australia and Papua New Guinea defining the common border and providing a framework for management of the common marine border, adjoining the Torres Strait Islanders. It was agreed in 1985[31]. The treaty pioneered environmental management in the Torres Strait region. This management includes the protection of Indigenous flora and fauna, the prohibition of mining and drilling of sea beds and required consultation with local communities about sustainable development[32]. The treaty designated a Torres Strait Protected Zone (TSPZ) to protect the ancestral customary right to use, and to perform traditional practices[33].

The Torres Strait Islanders were dissatisfied with the Torres Strait Treaty because of how the treaty restricted their fishing and hunting rights, ultimately leading to their loss of revenue from these resources[32]. As a solution, the Australian federal government worked alongside the TSRA to improve the political power of the Islanders, involving them in the establishment of a new fishing management plan.

Assessment

Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs)

Due to the presence of ANTaR at local and national levels, it holds high relative power at the local scale when compared to other NGOs. Many Torres Strait Islanders share their concerns and priorities with the local ANTaR branches with the expectation that their needs will be advocated for by the ANTaR national branch through lobbying and campaigns[18]. The ability of ANTaR to listen, represent and successfully lobby for Islander needs at a national level proves that it holds high relative power as an NGO.

Although Kailag Enterprises are working to help Islanders, there have been issues with their sponge farm project and prawn fisheries[20]. Since they are a non-profit organization working outside the government, they do not have as much power as to make the farm a formal exclusion zone[20]. They do not wield as much influence as TSPF since they are a small organization that starts projects to assist minorities[34].

Research centres working in and for Australian wildlife have a relatively low level of influence on decision-making[34]. Often their influence arrives as a counter measure rather than a pre-emptive measure. The protection of dugong, for example, is a high priority for the Reef and Rainforest Research Centre. however, they are not able to inhibit or regulate the harvesting by Torres Strait Islanders due to Article 22[22]. However, these research centres are deemed credible and legitimate by other interested stakeholders[34].

The Forest Stewardship Council in Australia is relatively small in size however, it incorporates a wide array of members and stakeholders. Due to this diverse representation, FSC Australia is able to hold large influential power over many disciplines. Although an FSC certification is optional, it holds significant power in its ability to declare a company or corporation as following responsible and just forest management practices. Further, FSC Australia’s efforts to create a Reconciliation Action Plan and to incorporate FPIC in the certification guidelines empowers Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders with an equal voice during discussions around responsible forest management. Overall, although the FSC is entirely voluntary, it holds high relative power as the only third-party forest certification system in Australia[23].

Australian Government

Among the interested stakeholder groups, the Australian federal government holds the greatest political power due to its ability to design, review and execute legal actions. Further, the other stakeholder groups are regulated or monitored by various government bodies. Because the federal government holds the most power, other stakeholder groups must keep them accountable; ensuring their proper use of power, and that the policies they develop are fair, effective and comprehensive.

The Australian federal government holds power in their ability to assign various government positions and roles to the Torres Strait Peoples. However, the government has failed to create a well distributed number of positions and has failed to clarify the precise reason for hiring individual Islanders. Due to this poor management, these government positions have a high turnover rate, with many Torres Strait Islanders leaving their government positions. As a result, the government must also keep hiring new employees to meet their employment quota[25]. The fundamental goal of Islander involvement in government positions should be to include their perspective during decision making processes, not simply to fulfill an employment target.

The NIFS has put effort into improving the financial well-being of Torres Strait Islanders by aiding in the binding agreements between the private wood industry and the Torres Strait Islanders. However, Feary[16] pointed out that the influence of NIFS is minimal at a national scale because the consultation process with Islanders lacks proper supervision or involvement of government bodies[35]. The lack of government support makes it difficult for NIFS to assess and regulate the agreements between the private wood industries and the Torres Strait Islanders.

Recommendations

To ensure the continued contribution of Torres Strait Islanders on their lands, various stakeholder groups need to work together to secure the Islanders' rights and responsibilities to the lands.

During the design process of various projects, the federal government should work to better integrate the existing programs and policies between interested stakeholders (eg. ANTaR, FSC) and the affected Torres Strait community. Through this process, each stakeholder group can learn from one another and further improve upon their own policy frameworks. Further, site-based projects should be encouraged as their specificity allows one to better observe its progress and monitor its outcomes[16].

Future forestry projects must contain business guidance and training for Torres Strait Islanders to ensure that they can properly operate equipment and incorporate modern methods into their practices. In addition, future projects should include more appropriate use of Traditional Ecological Knowledge (TEK), and sufficient consultation with and consent from the Torres Strait Islanders[16]. The government bodies should respect and recognize the cultural values of the Torres Strait Islanders by establishing programs and proper education systems that support their traditional practices.

Although there are movements towards, there should be greater emphasis on ensuring the fairness of policies such as the Torres Strait Treaty and NFIS. For example, in terms of the Torres Strait Treaty, the Australian federal government can create a fair and enforceable identification system for the sea's resources, providing Islanders with proper and legal rights to fish and resources on their own lands[32].

Lastly, the Australian federal government should aim to provide meaningful and transparent work for their Torres Strait Islander employees. These positions should not be created as simply a way to fill an employment quota, but should instead provide the Islanders with a platform to speak and share freely without restrictions of power[36]. In addition, the government should work to ensure that the Islanders' positions and roles are distributed fairly throughout the bureaucratic system.

References

  1. 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 Australian Human Rights Commission. (2020, March 30). Face the Facts 2005. Retrieved from Questions and Answers about Aboriginal & Torres Strait Islander Peoples: https://www.humanrights.gov.au/our-work/questions-and-answers-about-aboriginal-torres-strait-islander-peoples
  2. 2.0 2.1 2.2 Muswellbrookshire Council. (2020, March 30). Working with Indigenous Australians. Retrieved from Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people and their communities: http://www.workingwithindigenousaustralians.info/content/History_2_60,000_years.html
  3. 3.0 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 3.6 3.7 Dudgeon, P., Wright, M., Paradies, Y., Garvey, D., & Walker, I. (2010). The social, cultural and historical context of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians. Working together: Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander mental health and wellbeing principles and practice, 25-42.
  4. 4.00 4.01 4.02 4.03 4.04 4.05 4.06 4.07 4.08 4.09 4.10 4.11 4.12 4.13 4.14 4.15 4.16 4.17 4.18 4.19 Shnukal, A. (2001). Torres Strait Islanders. Brisbane: Multicultural Queensland.
  5. 5.0 5.1 AIATSIS. (2019). Land rights. Retrieved from https://aiatsis.gov.au/explore/articles/land-rights
  6. Wet Tropics Management Authority. (2012). Rainforest Aboriginal culture. Retrieved from https://www.wettropics.gov.au/site/user-assets/docs/Caringforcountry.pdf
  7. 7.0 7.1 7.2 7.3 Queensland Government. (2017). Land transfers. Retrieved from https://www.qld.gov.au/atsi/environment-land-use-native-title/land-transfers
  8. 8.0 8.1 8.2 Encyclopaedia Britannica. (n.d.). Torres Strait Islander peoples: history and governance. Retrieved from https://www.britannica.com/topic/Torres-Strait-Islander-people/History-and-governance
  9. 9.0 9.1 9.2 9.3 9.4 Australian Government. (n.d.). Land tenure. Retrieved from https://www.austrade.gov.au/land-tenure/Land-tenure/aboriginal-and-torres-strait-islander-land
  10. 10.0 10.1 Torres Strait Regional Authority. (n.d.). The TSRA. Retrieved from http://www.tsra.gov.au/the-tsra
  11. 11.0 11.1 11.2 11.3 11.4 MacDonald, E. (2007). The Torres Strait regional authority : is it the answer to regional governance for Indigenous peoples? Australian Indigenous Law Review, 11(3), 43-54.
  12. Torres Strait Island Regional Council. (n.d.). About council. Retrieved from http://www.tsirc.qld.gov.au/your-council/who-we-are/about-council
  13. Torres Shire Council. (n.d.). Home. Retrieved from http://www.torres.qld.gov.au/
  14. Northern Peninsula Area Regional Council. (n.d.). Council information. Retrieved from https://www.nparc.qld.gov.au/council-information/home
  15. 15.0 15.1 15.2 15.3 15.4 15.5 15.6 15.7 Hunt, J., Altman, J., & May, K. (2009). Social benefits of Aboriginal engagement in Natural Resource management. The Australian National University.
  16. 16.0 16.1 16.2 16.3 16.4 16.5 16.6 16.7 Feary, S. (Ed.). (2007). Forestry for indigenous peoples: learning from experiences with forest industries - Papers from Technical Session 130, XXII IUFRO World Congress 2005. Canberra: Australian National University.
  17. ANTaR. (n.d.). Purpose. Retrieved from https://www.antar.org.au/about/purpose
  18. 18.0 18.1 18.2 18.3 ANTaR Qld. (n.d.). Native Title. Retrieved from http://antarqld.org.au/campaigns/native-title
  19. ANTaR. (2019). ANTaR annual report: 2018-2019. Retrieved from https://antar.org.au/sites/default/files/antar-ar-2019-a4.pdf
  20. 20.0 20.1 20.2 20.3 20.4 Sachs, P., Turnbull, C., Jacobson, I., & Cocking, L. (2012). Torres Strait Prawn Fishery Handbook. Canberra: Australian Fisheries Management Authority.
  21. 21.0 21.1 Kleisner, K., Brennan, C., Garland, A., Lingard, S., Tracey, S., Sahlqvist, P., . . . Zeller, D. (2015). Australia: Reconstructing estimates of total fisheries removal, 1950-2010. Vancouver: Fisheries Centre: The University of British Columbia.
  22. 22.0 22.1 22.2 22.3 22.4 Marsh, H., Hodgson, A., Lawler, I., Grech, A., & Delean, S. (2007). Condition, status and trends and projected futures of the dugong in the Northern Great Barrier Reef and Torres Strait; including identification and evaluation of the key threats and evaluation of available management options to improve its status. Cairns: Reef and Rainforest Research Centre Limited.
  23. 23.0 23.1 23.2 23.3 23.4 FSC Australia. (n.d.). About FSC. Retrieved from https://au.fsc.org/en-au/about-fsc
  24. OCPE. (2018). Aboriginal employment in the NTPS Darwin: Northern Territory Government. Retrieved from https://ocpe.nt.gov.au/nt-public-sector-employment/aboriginal-employmentand-career-development/aboriginal-employment-in-the-ntps
  25. 25.0 25.1 Lahn, J., & Ganter, E. (2018). Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in public service roles: Representation, recognition and relationships in Australian government bureaucracies. Journal of Australian Political Economy, (82), 133-148.
  26. Rhodes, R. (2005). Everyday Life in a Ministry: Public Administration as Anthropology. American Review of Public Administration, 35(1), pp 3-25. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/249696937_Everyday_Life_in_a_Ministry
  27. 27.0 27.1 Australian Government. (2005). The National Indigenous Forestry Strategy. Retrieved from https://www.agriculture.gov.au/sites/default/files/sitecollectiondocuments/forestry/australias-forest-policies/nifs_strategy.pdf
  28. 28.0 28.1 Australian Governemnt Department of Agriculture. (2013). Australia's State of the Forests Report: Maintenance and enhancement of long term multiple socio-economic benefits to meet the needs of societies. Canberra: Australian Bureau of Agricultural & Resource Economics & Sciences.
  29. 29.0 29.1 Ganter, E. (2011). Representatives in orbit: Livelihood options for aboriginal people in the administration of the Australian desert. doi:10.1071/RJ11027
  30. Altman, J., & Dillon, M. (2005). commercial development and natural resource management on the indigenous estate: A profit‐related investment proposal. Economic Papers: A Journal of Applied Economics and Policy, 24(3), 249-262. doi:10.1111/j.1759-3441.2005.tb00377.x
  31. Butler, J. R. A., Busilacchi, S., & Skewes, T. (2019). How resilient is the Torres Strait Treaty (Australia and Papua New Guinea) to global change? A fisheries governance perspective. Environmental Science and Policy, 91, 17-26. doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2018.10.005
  32. 32.0 32.1 32.2 Mulrennan, M., & Scott, C. (2005). Co-management—An Attainable Partnership? Two Cases from James Bay, Northern Quebec and Torres Strait, Northern Queensland. Anthropologica, 47(2), 197-213. Retrieved from www.jstor.org/stable/25606236
  33. Haigh, D. J. (1999). 'Fishing War' in the Torres Strait: The Queen v Benjamin Ali Nona and George Agnes Gesa. James Cook University Law Review, 6(1999), 165-168. Retrieved from http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/IndigLawB/1999/60.html
  34. 34.0 34.1 34.2 Butler, J. R., Bohensky, E., Skewes, T., Maru, Y., Hunter, C., Busilacchi, S., . . . Doupe, J. (2012). Torres Strait futures: Regional stakeholders' future scenarios and livelihood adaptation strategies. Reef and Rainforest Research Centre.
  35. Nettheim, G., Meyers, G. D., & Craig, D. (2002). Indigenous peoples and governance structures: a comparative analysis of land and resource management rights. Aboriginal Studies Press. Canberra: Australia.
  36. Rerden, W., & Guerin, B. (2015). The employment of Aboriginal and Torres Strait islanders in local government: Issues, benefits, and ways forward. Australasian Journal of Organisational Psychology, 8 doi:10.1017/orp.2015.1


Seekiefer (Pinus halepensis) 9months-fromtop.jpg
This conservation resource was created by Megan Burkholder, Chen Chen, Xuedan Xu. It has been viewed over {{#googleanalyticsmetrics: metric=pageviews|page=Course:CONS370/Projects/Indigenous involvement in the management and governance of the Torres Strait Islands: A case study of the Torres Strait Islanders|startDate=2006-01-01|endDate=2020-08-21}} times.It is shared under a CC-BY 4.0 International License.