Yolŋu leaders from across Arnhem Land enjoy the Opening Ceremony of the first Yolŋu Nations Assembly. Photo by Zephyr L'Green.

The first ever Yolŋu Nations Assembly (YNA) was held from 14^th-17^th October in Galiwin’ku, bringing together clan leaders from across Arnhem Land.

Below is a letter of thanks from Yolŋu leaders to those who supported the gathering.

31^st October 2011

Dear Supporters,

On behalf of Yolŋu Nations Assembly (YNA), I would like to extend our deep gratitude for your support of the first assembly from Friday 14^th to Monday 17^th October.

 The Yolŋu Nations Assembly has been formed to represent eight traditional states that cover East, Central and West Arnhem Land. These states are called: Miwatj, Laynha, Raminy, Marthakal, Garriny, Gumurr-Rawarraŋ, Gaṯtjirrik and Miḏiyirrk.

 The outcomes of the assembly will be made public in the coming months.

The First Yolŋu Nations Assembly was a very uplifting time for all the leaders involved. It cannot be expressed how greatly this action has provided a source of hope for the Arnhem Land people. One can’t help feel that this is a changing of the tide for this region, an expression of self-determination in what has been a sad period of external take-over.

It was with your generous support that this uplifting event could take place. More information will follow, but until then, please accept our sincere gratitude for supporting us on this journey.

 Sincerely,

Rev Dr Djiniyini Gondarra OAM

Djirrikay for Dhurili Clan Nation

 

As a result, the economy of these communities are largely artificial.  Even where private businesses exist, ultimately they are dependent on the influx of taxation revenue from the Australian Government.  For example, the local store in Galiwin’ku is a commercially viable and profitable enterprise that successfully employs local Yolngu staff with wages at and above the industry standard (See ALPA website for their great work).  But ultimately, even businesses like this rely on customers whose income is almost entirely from Centrelink payments or from jobs in Government services, such as the clinic, Centrelink and the Shire council etc.  The other significant non-Government employers in many Arnhem Land communities are the Home Land Resource Centres. These centres run a variety of commercial enterprises, but again, rely on local customers’ welfare payments, or have contracts which come from Government grants and contracts, such as housing and infrastructure projects.  Seriously, if you lived in an Indigenous community your whole life, you should be forgiven for thinking that the whole country’s economy is based on Government handouts – this is the illusionary force that surrounds you as one continues to work in the “Indigenous Industry.”  If the Government suddenly stopped supporting Indigenous communities there would be a very limited monetary economy here.

The biggest source of income outside of the Government is land use royalties, for things such as mining, grazing and pearling, but like welfare payments these do not provide any meaningful employment for locals and are not managed by the people themselves.  These monies are controlled by the Land councils which in the NT, unlike the rest of Australia, are not locally controlled organisations, but statutory organisations that manage income from a huge expanse of  lands on behalf of the true land owners.  The Land councils struggle to determine who should control these monies according to the traditional Indigenous systems, and so tend to divide the profits amongst everyone who puts up a fight for it.  Due to the lack of connection between the payments and the land the monies come from, and the lack of control traditional owners have, these royalties become another form of “free” money.

As the most readily available sources of income are perceived as free money, many people have become trapped by dependency on such devalued income.  Their sense of motivation and power, and motivation to labour dwindles as they start to believe that accessing “free” money is the way one must survive today.  However, do not think that people are all hopelessly dependent or  just “bludging” – there are very limited jobs to go around, so people are forced to make do however they can. Welfare payments become the only option as life in the new world being constructed around them in these “growth towns”, is more and more dependent on access to money.

Workers making compost in a private family run market garden, an enterprise supported by the AHED Project

There are only a few areas of private enterprise that add real value to the local economy and also provide a fulfilling vocation.  These are mostly from the arts, crafts trade and knowledge industries, such as teaching, Indigenous knowledge, and research.  There is almost no primary production, with locally controlled market gardens just starting to become real possibilities (although hampered by the difficulties of finding a motivated workforce, and constant attempts by the DC to force community gardens on people).  This stands in stark contrast to the mission history when all the missions had thriving gardens.  A sustainable tourist industry is also only just starting to spread it wings.

What does this mean in monetary terms for the average household?   The average income in the community is roughly equivalent to a social security payment between about $300 – $480 a fortnight.  Pensioners and people receiving top ups on Community Development Employment Project  payments (CDEP, which is now a form of Newstart Centrelink payment and is being phased out) receive up to about $600 per fortnight in total.  This means on average, people are earning about one fifth to one quarter of the average Australian income ($60,000pa as at August 2010). Some families receive income in addition to this through royalty payments that are usually widely distributed.   This seems to be sufficient for most families to manage rent and buy food and basic items, when they are managing their budget well.  Those who manage their money well, have enough – but those that do not, struggle, and there are those who, for various reasons, have difficulty accessing income including Centrelink payments – who are truly poor.

We need to remember that the economy is not just about the money – the real ecomony involves the transfer and transformation of all valuables.  These include all forms of sweat (hard work and labour, including parenting), using land resources and primary production (growing things).   Many Yolŋu people contribute to the local economy through land management and harvesting traditional foods. For a few young men this is almost a full time job.  While money is rarely exchanged for Yolŋu food items,  the food is exchanged through reciprocal generosity and kin relationships.  Yolŋu native food items are highly valued and are important  contributions to the families’ real income and nutrition.  Significant local elders in Arnhem Land communities also contribute huge amounts of time to governance, dispute resolution and generally maintaining social order through Indigenous systems. This work is mostly devoted to the Indigenous domain – that part of Aboriginal communities that non-Indigenous personnel rarely participate in.  In addition to this some of them also participate, with difficulty, in the Dominant Culture governance system.  This energy is of huge value and is almost always unpaid, and thus remains an important labour contribution to the economy.

In painting this picture, I am not judging people’s use of money or suggesting they need higher incomes.  History show that when incomes increase rapidly in Indigenous communities, money tends to be devalued, creating dependency and even loss of purpose (see previous article).  My focus here is to ask how we can sensibly help people to develop the local economy under these conditions. The answer I believe is found in matching economic policy to support people’s real needs and motivations, while challenging welfare dependency.  This is the topic of the Part 3.

The blame game has two parts the first arises because the dominant culture recongises that they alone cannot know how to solve the problems experienced by Indigenous peoples. But instead of working along side the people, the dominant culture tends to distance itself by pushing Indigenous individuals or organisation to be the saviours of their own people.  This sets up unreasonable expectations for Indigenous organisations and particular individuals, such as well spoken leaders, liaison officers, health workers or council members.  Although these people are often very intelligent and remarkable individuals, people in such roles tend to have an expectation forced on them by others, that they can and must fix the Indigenous problems.  This becomes internalized and can result in an impression that they must have some special ability to fix things, and a fear of failure.  As the son of the ‘guru’ Richard Trudgen it is possible that I fall into this category myself; I expect myself to do miracles sometimes, and get sensitive when I am challenged. This is the danger, that when things go wrong, or if someone disagrees with these special people, blame is the unconscious reaction.  A sense of self inspection can be lost if one is put under these kind of expectations. This is a danger for all of us, but if is particularly so when a culture is created around an individual or even whole organisations, which  says, “You are the solution, so your position must be respected.”  Consequently, by holding on to the false idea that we are the solution, when something goes wrong or is disagreeable, immediate response is that it must be someone else’s fault.  Any criticism or challenge is taken as an accusation or attack against the special role of appointed saviours.  And in response some other person or organisation becomes the subject of rumour or even public accusation, producing a counter response leading to bickering and bad politics between and within Indigenous organisations.  This part of the blame game encourages defensiveness who have been “puffed up” with unreasonable expectations, and produces a reluctance to criticise for fear of reprisal in others.  This process is damaging to the whole system as fair and positive criticism is needed for accountability.  This defensiveness and blaming fractures trust and limits good dialouge.

The situation is compounded between Indigenous and non-Indigenous groups.  Some Indigenous people are very defensive because they have experienced so much unfair treatment personally and generationally that they are easily offended and become defensive to protect themselves.  On the other hand those in the dominant culture, having become aware of the harm their heritage has caused Indigneous people over the years, seem to carry a sense of guilt.  I’m sure many Balanda (‘white fellas’, dominant culture people) have sensed this.  If you have been confronted by an Indigenous person, it is like a sense that, “Oh, I must be careful talking to this person and not say anything that might offend.”  The result is that when we unknowingly enter ‘the game’, Balanda walk around thinking, ‘I must not blame the Indigenous person’, while the Indigenous person walks around feeling, ‘I must not be blamed’.  This creates a rift of dishonesty as Balanda personnel fail to challenge the Indigneous person and the Indigenous person becomes quickly defensive in times of conflict and cannot accept being challenged.  The game becomes most imporant when we realise that this can be come a mechanism of control over ourselves or others.  There are those who work the blame game to their advanatage, in fact we all do this some times.  Indigenous people can control  Balanda, and thus whole organisations at times, to do what ever they want by pulling the right guilt strings.  Balanda can control some Indigenous people, and thus whole organisations at times, by using false praise and rumors.

We need to escape this ‘blame game’.  Organisations should not be so offended when someone or another organisation points out a problem.  We need to work together to identify real problems and help fix them. The first key to escaping this negative cultural dynamic is humility, recognising that you are a unique person, but no one special.  Humility also means assuming the best of every other person, which helps us to recognise when hurt is unintended.  The second key is to realise that we are part of the ‘Blame Game’. We need to recognise our guilt over issues or our fear of being criticised and dela with it.  he best way to do this is to reflect on why you feel that when you encounter situations that bring up this emontions.  Then think about what should be the appropriate response  that you would use next time (eg. how would you treat a person in this situation there where no power or racial issue involved).  If we do not work to release fear and guilt associated with the other cultural group we will be controlled by it in our selves or be controlled by others pulling our strings.