WA Greens Senator CHRISTABEL CHAMARETTE recently visited Aboriginal communities in the state's north to consult with them on land rights and the government's Mabo legislation. She was interviewed in Perth for Green Left Weekly by MICHELLE HOVANE.
Your visit was part of ongoing community consultation, I believe.
Yes, Tao and Cathcart [advisers to Chamarette] completed a more extensive tour previously. They were up north for about eight days. What they discovered was a real lack of understanding about what the government was doing and the legislation. A lot of their time was spent answering questions. That was prior to any government discussion document being released.
Following on from this preparatory work, along with Cathcart and Jo Trevelyn, I completed a five-day trip last week.
In five days we travelled over 2000 kilometres, visiting and speaking with communities in Roeburne, the Pilbara, Derby, Broome, La Grange and just out of Fitzroy Crossing. In each case we took copies of the government's discussion paper with us and distributed them.
Our first visit was with the Caragini Corporation in Roeburne and then on to the Pilbara Land Council where we met with three people including the Council chairman, Gordon Yuline. From there we moved on to Derby, where we attended a regional meeting of ATSIC. Here we found the greatest awareness of the implications of the legislation and the government's discussion paper.
People felt that views of the mining and pastoral industries had received far more emphasis from the government than those of Aboriginal people. There was considerable unhappiness with the draft discussion paper.
We also attended a meeting at La Grange. This was quite a difficult meeting because there were five tribes living on what is now Roman Catholic land.
We also participated in a workshop organised by the Kimberley Land Council at a place just out of Fitzroy Crossing. The council was presenting information from the government discussion paper, and we had a chance to listen in on the discussions.
What was the outcome of these discussions?
Apart from reinforcing my respect for the Aboriginal people and the incredible reasonableness of their approach, I think the visit reinforced the value of consultation. I was amazed that the government hadn't met with these people and discovered what their real concerns were. We seem to be the only people who are doing it. The government has not consulted with the Aboriginal community.
The other thing that we learned was the complexity of the issues, that every single community had a different issue.
I am very aware that we have not visited the Goldfields area or the south-west, and I will be sending my staff out there soon.
What is your opinion of the implications of Mabo?
I think that Mabo presented a unique opportunity for justice, for addressing the constitutional lie on which Australia was founded "Terra Nullius", and so a chance to redress the damage that colonial Australia inflicted on Aboriginal people in regard to their land and access to their land.
Without having seen the government's social justice package, it seems to me that the government is taking a "problem solving" approach prior to working out what the real problems are. The "problem" they are trying to solve is the competing interests within the wider Australian community: the mining and pastoral interests, the "development" lobby vs an acknowledgment, or at least lip service, of the need to redress past injustices and also a commitment to a "reconciliation" process.
I don't think you can have reconciliation without having justice first. I did believe that Mabo had that possibility, and I still do. I am pleased that the government's discussion paper is only a draft.
We have also met with the mining industry, and we will be meeting with the farming community.
There have been concerns, particularly from Aboriginal people in urban areas, that Mabo does nothing to redress the theft of their land.
Spot on. Mabo addresses those least damaged by colonialism. It doesn't address those who have been most damaged by white Australia. Although I haven't seen the social justice package yet, I understand that there are some provisions for compensation and possibly even a fund to enable people to buy back their land or purchase other tracts if their traditional lands have been stolen from them.
One thing that we are hearing very clearly is that Aboriginal people feel that all Aboriginal people should be given justice. There is concern that the system of state-based tribunals means that justice will be uneven. The mining lobby favours a state-based system, but most Aboriginal people feel that some kind of federal tribunal is more appropriate.
You have talked about competing interests and consulting with all concerned. How do you weigh up the merits of those different interests?
While the Greens are prepared to listen to everybody, the Greens WA have a clear position of support for Aboriginal self-determination. We are trying to provide a voice for Aboriginal people in the Senate.
Apart from consultations, have the Greens any plans or ideas about grassroots activity in combination with your work in parliament?
Yes, I thought the statement in the GLW editorial [September 15] was very apt. We do need some community action; it is very important. Unfortunately our two Senate offices are too under-resourced to be able to organise that kind of action. In a way community groups need to resource us.
We will be holding a consultation with the members of the Greens WA shortly. The Greens WA have 14 local groups. We are hoping that those groups can act as detonators for local action.
I know that the churches and universities have also been active around these issues. Community Aid Abroad has also been very good at promoting forums and actions.
We are happy to provide resources and support and facilitate in any way we can, to be part of the network.