AHED Client Timothy Dhimala discusses his market garden enterprise with an AHED Facilitator

2. Supporting motivation

Passion and motivation die hard.  We came to Galiwin’ku to support motivated individuals and groups 18 months ago. In that time, more than 18 different people and groups have engaged with us in enterprises they are actively developing, based on their own internal motivation and effort.  This is despite 30-40 years of  crisis, demoralisation and welfare disincentives in their community.  But without support, people give up.  Motivated individuals must be supported to overcome all the barriers involved in participating in the economy and running an enterprise.  They need help to find resources, supplies and the practical things that come with managing money, staff and analysing business decisions etc.  This is not much different to the needs of mainstream entrepreneurs.  However, for many remote Aboriginal people, support must also include learning the “white man’s” rules about how to start and run a corporate structure, eg. understanding the taxation system and the function of a corporation.  They also need help overcoming cultural barriers.  As many remote locals have English as a second language, they cannot communicate well with the mainstream and don’t know where to start to find even basic information about their needs.  Without support in these areas, they find themselves in the dark and isolated, unable to succeed and not knowing why.  This turns motivation into depression and other mental disorders.

Motivation cannot be created by outside influence.  Real, empowering education gives people the ability to find their vision, but passion is birthed within the person by their own soul. No one can insert it.  This makes it a valuable commodity indeed. So when and within whom it blossoms it must be supported.

Surprisingly, in 2008 we found that very few (almost no) services existed to provide such support to economic visionaries in Arnhem Land remote Aboriginal communities.  Programs were designed to help write business plans, and get loans or even small business grants, but mostly there was nothing designed to give no-strings-attached help to the everyday learning, information and resourcing needs of Indigenous people with big ideas.  This support to local visionaries is the second key to successful and sustainable economic development, because it enables those with the passion and internal motivation to overcome barriers to create new productive nodes in the local economy.

Let’s look at an example.  One of our clients many years ago was sucessfully running a lush tropical market garden, using treated effluent from the local sewage farm.  The effluent was being pumped onto his land, but he did not know that he could not use it under Balanda (Australian) law without a special license.  His access was shut off.  At this point no one offered to help him get the right licenses or teach him how to use the water safely.  Even while the local community garden  in town failed time and time again, no one asked how can we provide long term help to allow this visionary to maintain his once  flourishing garden.  He got help here and there, but when he came to us shortly after we started the AHED project in his community, he was successfully growing sugar cane, but his bananas were still failing for lack of nutrients.  He was also an old man now so he needed workers to help in the garden.  Thus supporting his motivation meant finding and importing a sugar cane juicer he could afford, helping him learn to run a market stall for his juice, bringing in expert advice on how to get nutrients with his low income, looking into the law on sewage reuse and working towards a reuse license, helping him find strategies to save for vehicles and equipment, and helping him find and motivate a workforce.  Despite some set backs his garden is gradually improving without the nutrients from the effluent and we are working toward him getting his license.  Despite his age and the barriers he has faced his motivation and activity in his enterprise has increased.

Supporting visionaries in their passion unfortunately is not as simple as diving in and helping everyone with anything they want.  If the support person ends up running around doing everything for the visionary, this is not empowerment, but rather, leads back to an unhealthy dependency and can undermine a person’s drive.  The visionary will likely creep into laziness at the hands of an overzealous program or supporter.  The supporter  can also get into the danger of  managing the client and their vision, which strips their sense of control from the client and also ruins motivation. So, support must focus on keeping the visionary informed, educated, and the principal party in all decisions. We must focus on supporting a person’s motivation by removing the real barriers they face and leaving the barriers that they have the ability to change themselves.  By this process the short term success will not be shown in statistical outcomes, but in the direct effort the local visionary/ies put in, and this effort should well exceed that of the dominant culture supporters. In the example above, our gardener today proves to have as much or more motivation in his enterprise than when he started, even though his workforce failed him many times and his garden was lost to a bush fire on one ocassion.  Still, his motivation is demonstrated by his increasing commitment to put in hours and effort every day to improving his garden.

To support motivation for economic growth in Indigenous communities, we must do so through mechanisms that allow the entrepreneur to do the hard yards – to allow them to fail and get back up. Motivation can only be supported if the models for economic and enterprise development value the person and human process over the economic outcomes their enterprise might achieve.  The result is not rapid economic growth and the sudden rescuing of these Aboriginal economies (a dangerous hope), but it is gradual, sustainable growthm with the potential for the exponential expansion of these economies in the long term as people’s hopes and hearts turn mistakes into learnings – and finally success.

See the AHED project website for more information about the model we are using to provide this support without encouraging dependency.

What an odd experience!  I found myself looking over my own shoulder, not quite sure  how to react.  My ego was of course immediately affronted.   What do you mean you don’t think I can manage my own finances?  Who gives you the right to decide that? And, how do you decide that?  The fact is, I am quite proud of the way I manage my finances,  and do not care for anyone else to interfere with that.  But then of course, I am receiving a payment from the Government, so is it their right to decide what I do with it?  Or, is it my right to receive that payment because in this country we have committed to a decent income for all and value the work that parents do in looking after their children?

There is one more thing – I am white, middle class and educated.  I am not used to being told what to do and I do not like it.  It just so happens that my family and I have recently relocated to a remote Indigenous community and consequently are living in an area where income management is compulsory.  So, if my Indigenous neighbours must be income managed then why shouldn’t I?

Shopping for basics....

In 2007 income management, amongst other measures, was introduced as part of the Federal Government’s Northern Territory Emergency Response (NTER or more commonly known as the Intervention), targeting all Commonwealth i

ncome recipients in 73 Northern Territory Indigenous communities, quarantining half of their payments, specifying what the money was not to be used for and where it could be spent.

The purpose?  Supposedly to help families better manage their money and look after their children.  The inherent assumption? That Indigenous income recipients can not manage money or their families. How insulting, paternalistic, racist – and just annoying.

The outcome?  Official studies show no clear evidence of the program’s benefits outweighing the possible harm.  For example, the Menzies Health Research Unit’s thorough statistical study of purchases pre and post the introduction of Income management in a group of stores showed no statistical evidence of better purchasing patterns after implementation.  Apart from making people’s finances significantly more complicated, the primary outcome I can see has been to make people feel less empowered and less in control of their lives – something that can only have negative consequences.  I do not see any evidence that it has influenced people’s spending habits, just as it has not affected mine.  People know what they need and want to buy and so they continue to do so, navigating the system accordingly eg using the 50% of funds that is income managed to buy their food and pay bills, and if they chose to do so, spending the rest on those things they aren’t allowed to buy through income management – cigarettes, gambling, sharing directly with family, etc.  It is in effect taking away responsibility from people in making choices about what they do with their income and how they manage their responsibilities. Surely this only increases dependency on welfare systems?

I am also aware that the sharing of the Basics cards, (an EFTPOS type card only accepted in income management approved stores,) is very common and therefore does not prevent the “humbugging” – a term I had never heard used so commonly before moving here, used to refer to the ongoing requests for money from relatives and friends – that the Government seems to think such a problem.  People live in extended family groups here and they share their resources.  Forcing people to have an extra account with an extra card does not change this.

For myself, my options were to accept income management and apply for a Basics card, which is accepted at all services and shops in this community (the options being so limited anyway), or not accept the payment and try to live off a reduced income whilst we raise our children.

Last week, however, I discovered that it is possible to apply for an exemption from income management. All I had to do was participate in a phone interview consisting of questions such as : “Do I have problems with people asking me for money all the time?” “Do I pay my bills on time?” “Do I save money and put aside money for big bills?” “Do I have a mortgage?” “Do I have any debts or have I had to apply for any urgent payments or loans from Centrelink?”  All of these I answered verbally with no further evidence required to verify my answers.  The only documentation I had to provide was a medical certificate of attendance for my son, presumably to show that I take him to the doctor and he is not neglected (if he was of school age I would have needed to provide a record of attendance). What a humiliating process for anyone to have to go through.

I am now exempt from income management for 12 months and must then reapply. I have since learnt, however, that only approximately 10% of people who apply for exemption are granted it, highlighting my awareness that it was the colour of my skin and upbringing in the dominant culture that made it so easy for me, further confirmed by the embarrassment conveyed by Centrelink staff who I dealt with at the awkwardness of the situation.  Moreover, there is a bribe of a $250 bonus every six months to encourage people to stay on income management voluntarily, which I was offered and refused.

In 2010, under pressure from UN criticisms of the Government’s suspension of the Racial Discrimination Act that had allowed it to apply income management to Indigenous people alone, the Government amended the policy and extended it to most income recipients in the Northern Territory on a non-racial basis. Since then, despite the scant evidence of positive outcomes, little official support and various formal inquiry and submission processes, (e.g. The Senate Community Affairs Committee Inquiry for which more than 80 submissions were received – almost all opposed to the extensions of forms of coercive income management,) the Government has chosen to further extend the program to what it defines as “appropriate target areas” with higher than average numbers of Commonwealth income recipients.  New legislation passed in June 2010 was supported by both the Government and the Opposition and only opposed by the Greens.

Consequently, the Government now has the power to apply income management anywhere in Australia and from 2012 it will be applied in five new areas in NSW, Queensland, Victoria and South Australia at a cost of $4000 per recipient per year in staff and administration (based on costs in the N.T.).

In her article on income management for Arena Magazine, Eva Cox writes:

“The use of initiatives like the Howard government’s Intervention to maintain policies that are discriminatory against minority groups and racist in origin, is seriously problematic.  What is interesting is that few in the progressive community are looking at these areas of social policy and considering what needs to be done to move back to a human rights and equity model.”

Why is that? Is it because it doesn’t affect us?  I admit that it has been very uncomfortable for me to recognise my own increased interest and indignation at the policy since its imposition on myself.  Or, is it our lack of knowledge and understanding that causes us not to act?

I think there is also a general sense that we, in the dominant culture, do not really know what is going on in Indigenous communities, which is understandable as most of the information we receive is filtered through Government channels and the media, leaving us uncertain as to how to respond.  We are told that child, domestic and drug abuse in Indigenous communities is rife, that communities are falling apart, that something must be done! For sure, there is gross inequality and disempowerment in Indigenous communities but one thing I can tell you, continuing to further disempower people is never the answer.

As dominant culture Australians we must not continue to support policies and programs that continue to disempower Indigenous communities, however well intentioned they may be.  We need to ask ourselves – are Indigenous people gaining control over their lives through this? Are they being empowered? Or does the power remain with those in the dominant culture?

Reference:

Income Management – Eva Cox Arena Magazine, 08 2011-09 2011 No 113 pg. 38-39

Jessie Pangas joined the AHED team in Galiwin’ku in July 2011.

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.

Media Release:   Tuesday  28/06/11

The Only Intervention Needed

“The only intervention needed in the Northern Territory is an intervention in communication” Richard Trudgen, author of Why Warriors Lie Down and Die, responds to the news that the Gillard Government will spend six weeks in talks with Indigenous leaders looking for new ideas to deal with the disadvantage that Aboriginal people in the Northern Territory experience.

“The Government needs to turn away from paternalistic programs and deliver real programs that empower the first Australians.

Right across the remote areas of Australia Aboriginal people, who speak an ‘original Australian language’ as their home language, are cut off from life saving and life changing information that other Australians receive in excess.” explains Richard.

For most of these Aboriginal people, English is still a very foreign language, which means that a visit to or from government authorities, service providers, or a trip to the doctor or hospital is a frightening and confusing experience of powerlessness. For their children, schooling is traumatic, dumbfounding and demeaning; resulting in young people having no hope for themselves in a world they cannot understand.

Even in important meetings with government or other statutory bodies, these first Australians are forced to receive information in English. This means they do not understand what is being said and due process cannot occur. They are deliberately locked out of the modern information era, leaving them to fill hospitals, jails, rehabilitation centres and unemployment queues and remain living on the fringe of Australian society, at a massive cost burden to the Australian community.

Witiyana Marika and Richard Trudgen play a Manikay (Songline) at Bridging the Gap seminars.

These Australians need news, current affairs, general and personal information in a language they can understand. Let’s level the playing field. They could receive information through language centres and radio services. Whole communities could learn to speak English through ‘learn English’ radio programs. Information programs in their language will close the gap permanently.

“How can feeding children in schools, creating a generation of super dependent young adults, ever close the gap? Let’s spend the public purse on programs that will change things for the good by giving all Australians access to good information. An intervention in communication would solve so many problems far more effectively!”

This is one of the issues that Richard Trudgen, Witiyana Marika and Dianne Gondarra address in their Bridging the Gap seminar series, held in capital cities around Australia. The next seminars will be held in Sydney, Brisbane and Darwin in October and November. See www.whywarriors.com.au to register.

For more information or interviews please ring Richard Trudgen (08) 8987 1664

The Dhurili Nation, comprising the Datiwuy, Golumala, Marrakulu and Marrangu clans have previously confirmed to the Northern Land Council and the Minister for Indigenous Affairs that they are lawful traditional owners of some areas of land that are affected by a new mining lease and agreement with Rio Tinto Alcan in the Gove Peninsula in the Northern Territory.

“We feel very sad because our rights under Madayin Law have been pushed aside and much pain and division has been created. This shows that colonisation is still happening today creating disharmony, by people ignoring due process. Again the failures of the Australian Government and the NLC to work with Yolngu people through a proper process of law has created division between the clans of Arnhem Land. We will not be celebrating along with others the signing of this agreement” said Dr Gondarra.

The Northern Land Council and the Minister have allowed a new lease to be signed, despite the Dhurili Nation raising its concerns about a lack of lawful consultation and a failure to seek the consent of its members in line with the requirements of traditional Madayin law and the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976.

The Dhurili nation, part of the Yolngu people, were previously recognised as traditional owners of parts of the affected area. For reasons presently unknown to them, they were not properly consulted about the recent negotiations with Rio Tinto Alcan. As a result, the clans of the Dhurili Nation consider that their rights under Australian and traditional Aboriginal law have been breached and that they have been improperly excluded from the negotiation process.

The Dhurili Nation is considering challenging the actions of the Northern Land Council and the Minister for Indigenous Affairs in the Courts.

Dated: 7 June 2011

Contact: Rev. Dr. Djiniyini Gondarra, OAM (on behalf of the Dhurili Nation)