Poynton, Peter --- "Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Overview Committee: Bob Weatherell talks to Peter Poynton" [1994] AboriginalLawB 25; (1994) 3(68) Aboriginal Law Bulletin 9

• Aboriginal And Torres Strait Islander Overview Committee: Bob Weatherell Talks To Peter Poynton

---

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Overview Committee:

Bob Weatherell talks to Peter Poynton

Interview by Peter Poynton

Bob Weatherell was one of the Qld ATSIC nominees to the RCIADIC Overview Committee. He resigned in April 1994 to a barrage of press attention, but none of it was focused enough to explain why he resigned. The terms of reference of the Overview Committee are to advise and monitor the implementation of the RCIADIC recommendations to the Goss Government's Interdepartmental Committee and to make policy recommendations to the Minister whilst communicating and consulting with the community.

Bob sat as acting Chairman of an Overview Committee meeting in Cairns in late March and almost immediately afterwards he resigned. People are still keen to know why.

BW: It was probably only a month after that - probably three weeks - that I officially resigned ... on the 26th of April and my reasons are that there were far too many deaths in custody continuing ... and that was a clear indication to me that the implementation of the recommendations hadn't been effectively implemented and they were not carried out with the duty of care that was supposed to be given by police, and by correctional service officers. There w[ere] altogether (counting Aboriginal and non-Aboriginals who died in that period of time) about forty-two - that's since the handing down of the Royal Commission's recommendations ... I think there were about sixteen Aborigines and about 26 non-Aboriginal people, which says very clearly (and this is what the Queensland public hasn't been able to receive, the correct information) ... [that] if those recommendations had been implemented, the cross-cultural training had gone on, and there was effective follow-up of the training, of the corrective service people as well as police, then I'm sure that the [death in custody] numbers would have been less than what is portrayed now ... I don't believe that effective cross-cultural training has gone ahead, I don't believe that the police are thoroughly aware of their roles and responsibilities, and [I believe] they're not maintaining that responsibility to duty of care through their police manual.

P2: So what are the key areas where [implentation] is not working?

BW: The main areas are that the Government said last year that they were going to legislate the decriminalisation of public drunkenness and that there would be diversionary centres established so that Aboriginal people could go through the process of healing for those who were suffering trauma, but it was also going to be available for Aboriginal people who had substance abuse ... There are none that are effectively established, except for one in Mount Isa. Rockhampton is still fighting with a racist local government authority and residents of the area that won't allow them to establish one, Townsville has the same situation and Cairns has got a very small [centre] without all the other resources it requires - you need to have professional expertise; you ... need psychiatrists, and counsellors, and those types of people - this stuff hasn't been put in there, and so that's a clear indication to me that [establishment of diversionary centres] has not actually been implemented effectively. That's all right for these ones on the East coast - what happens up in the remote community, and what happens out in the rural areas? Nothing's been actually occurring, and so there was a great deficiency that I could see, that the Government wasn't actually implementing the recommendations, they were being being very choosy and trying to paint a very rosy picture of the situation, which wasn't actually true.

P2: Do you think that's the key problem ... that in fact the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Overview Committee is merely a rubber stamp?

BW: Absolutely. It is. I mean, I do believe that Aboriginal deaths in custody can be prevented - I wouldn't [have taken) the job up if I didn't - and the fact that our views aren't able to be seen for what they are by the Director-General Ruth Matchett and a few others, who continue to argue against our points of view in many cases, then there is a lot of discontent with the Overview Committee and [Ruth Matchett], and also with the Interdepartmental Committee.

P2: It's always very hard for people outside to look behind [the scenes] in the public service. You would have had a bird's eye view of what was really was going on behind the scenes, so in this little bureaucratic tangle, who are the people who are stopping the implementation?

BW: It comes down, basically, to the Director-General, and because it [the Overview Committee] was placed inside the Department of Family Services and Aboriginal Affairs, in that division ... It was the view of the Overview Committee that we should have had more power, and that we should have been independent from them [the Department of Family Services] so that we could go out and effectively monitor. How could we monitor? All we had was reports from departments to say ... particular recommendations had been implemented, but there was nothing to substantiate their claims. There was no way in the world that we [the Overview Committee] could substantiate any of the claims that the recommendations had been implemented in, say, the Correctional Services, or the police. The police would write a report and tell us that, but that's the only evidence that we had. The Ministers don't know whether those recommendations have been implemented, except for the report of the Departmental Heads - that give them a report - then they establish a report at the end of it, saying what jolly good fellows they are for implementing the recommendations of the Royal Commission, without substantiating to the Queensland population where the six million dollars had been spent, and how effectively ... There is [a report of where the money was spent] but it's only [from] the reports of the Departments who are members of the Interdepartmental Committee.

P2: So there's no cross-referencing of where the money's been spent, it's just what the government says it's done?

BW: No, I mean the money had been allocated for particular initiatives that were identified by the Interdepartmental Committee, but all the time we'd been there we never saw any Aboriginal community initiatives being funded.

P2: Did you put up Aboriginal community initiatives to be funded?

BW: Well, we were asking all the time, "Where are their submissions?" We never saw them.

P2: Were the submissions coming in?

BW: I think what was actually happening, they were going as far as the Department of Family Services.

P2: So submissions were coming in from the community to the Department, and they weren't being passed to the Overview Committee?

BW: Yes, and I think there must have been the hope, obviously, [that] they were being addressed by a program that the Department has.

P2: Surely the Department has to give you discretion to choose them if you're the Overview Committee ... ?

BW:...Only the ones that ... were sent over to the Overview Committee members by individual communities ... and then it was tabled, but it was never ever funded. Obviously it doesn't go through the right process - so what is the process? How do Aboriginal peoples acquire those funds?

P2: So the only process is to get the Department to support you?

BW: I've got to say that what dominates is the initiatives of the Department - the funds had already been allocated before we even were appointed - so that's what was actually happening; we were watching it go through. We were sitting there watching it, and giving our views on it, whether we approved of it, or we didn't approve ... What have we got out of it? That's the situation - has the infrastructure, like running water, electricity, and that type of thing been [met?]? Is there employment? Is there education? Sanitation? Is there a healing process? ... [Are] there cultural revitalisation and maintenance programs and all those types of things being actually implemented? Is the decriminalisation of public drunkenness actually happening? The police will say, "Well, we're not locking up Aboriginal people any more for drunkenness - we're picking them up for obscene language and other types of assaults ..." So they just change what it [the offence] can be. We've had reports from Cairns where one particular person was picked up by the police and they [police] said, "Well, what can we charge them with?" That's a clear indication of how the police are harassing Aboriginal people - and that police harassment and police violence are still quite prominent.

P2: Where do you stand on the recommendation to decriminalise public drunkenness? I've noticed that Sam Watson came out opposing it ...

BW: Yes, it was part of an unfortunate statement, actually.

P2:... and Errol West opposes it, too.

BW:... I think they're quite unfortunate statements when they don't speak on behalf of their whole community - they [the RCIADIC recommendations] are very significant recommendations and they are the first time that there has been a set of recommendations in this country that is going to return some kind of empowerment to Aboriginal people, and control, to them - if they were all implemented in the way that [they were] supposed to be implemented, that would be the ... result in the long-term ... I think those statements that have been made by Sam and Errol are quite unfortunate, and not in litre with the thinking or the view of the community, and that is the reason why it is imperative that that particular legislation [public drunkenness] [be] implemented - it means that you have to set up the diversionary centres - that's the mechanism to start the healing process; you've got a counselling process, you've got all those resources being made available for Aboriginal people who are on substance abuse, and Aboriginal people's mental health.

P2: So in fact the decriminalisation is merely a mechanism to set up the structure to deal with it, and heal people?

BW: Yes, that's correct - I say that anyone saying that kind of thing is missing the point, because what they say when they oppose the decriminalisation of public drunkenness - they're opposing the diversionary centres and healing centres being established.

... I just think more power, more autonomy has got to be given to the Overview Committee. It's got to have more consultation with the community and find out the views of those communities, and the funds have got to be provided to Aboriginal initiatives out in the rural and remote areas, as well as within the urban areas, so that they can all be addressed ... I think the other part of it is the diversion from imprisonment ... so that goes hand in hand with decriminalisation of public drunkenness ... How are they going to do it now, if they're not going to set these types of things up? The Queensland Government's not going to implement the decriminalisation of public drunkenness; I don't know what they're going to do in regards to Aboriginal health in this state - it's going to remain a sad state of affairs. It's a very clear indication of the Queensland Government's inability to deal with Aboriginal issues.