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.

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

 

In June, the Prime Minister Julia Gillard announced a “second intervention” to follow the Government’s Northern Territory Emergency Response (NTER).

This is the response from Aboriginal leaders in the Northern Territory to this announcement:

The Government and the people of Australia are only able to achieve true reconciliation with Aboriginal people of the Northern Territory if the environment for negotiation is changed and justice, that was so brutally removed by the Intervention, is restored.  Only through respectful dialogue and working together can we call Australia a nation based on the principles of democracy.

Future negotiations will rely upon:

1. The Aboriginal people in the 73 prescribed communities of the Northern Territory do not welcome any further consultation with the Government until it acknowledges the failures ofthe current Intervention.

2. The Aboriginal people of the Northern Territorywill only endorse a new initiative by the Government to improve the lives of Aboriginal people if the Government first establishes a diplomatic and respectful dialogue, negotiation and relationship with the traditional lawmen and lawwomen in the communities to be affected. These are the people that are seen as the true leaders by their communities, who are charged with maintaining ceremony, language, law and order. They must be properly consulted before any new initiative can take place in their communities.

3. The name “Intervention” and “Emergency Response” must be removed from any future initiative, which should instead focus on the goals of Education and Empowerment of Aboriginal People in the Northern Territory. It must dispel the prejudice and racial discrimination of Aboriginal people that is embedded in the Intervention, and which has created deep emotional pain and shame amongst Aboriginal people.

4. Any initiative aimed at education and training must support the right of Aboriginal people to maintain their Indigenous languages, cultural practices and the capacity to live and work on country.

5. To effectively support appropriate and beneficial development in Aboriginal communities, the Government must replace Government Business Managers with mentors that support and facilitate education, capacity-building and locally-controlled development in Aboriginal communities.

This is the will of the Aboriginal people of the Northern Territory.

Released by: Rev Dr Djiniyini Gondarra OAM, clan leader of the Dhurili Nation

Earlier this year, Navi Pillay, the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights came to Australia on her first official visit to discuss rights issues with the Government, the Australian Human Rights Commission, as well as Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities and non-governmental organizations. During her visit to Darwin, she met with Aboriginal leaders. Women from Galiwin’ku (Elcho Island, North East Arnhem Land) who are part of the Makarr Dhuni Forum wrote this letter together to Ms Pillay:

13th May 2011

Dear Navi Pillay,

RE: Yolngu Madayin Rom (sacred law) governing Yolngu women in North East Arnhem Land.

We the Yolngu  women of Galiwin’ku, North East Arnhem Land, Northern Territory, Australia wish to inform you of our opinions about women’s rights and responsibilities under our Yolngu law.

In our culture, the symbol of a woman is a sacred and holy dilli bag. This bag carries the law in the same way as a woman carries her child in her womb. Women therefore are carrying and maintaining the discipline, the moral teaching and the law in our community. For this reason women are very highly respected and seen as holy.  Their bodies are seen as sacred, as are their children according to the djalkirri rom (foundation law).

Nyomba Gandangu – wearing the dilly bag at the closing of the Yolngu Ngarra (Parliamentary sitting), before assenting to the law. Photo used with permission. Copyright Makarr Dhuni Forum

One of the practices that protects women and children is the relationship with our mother’s mother’s clan (mari pulu). This clan acts as an asylum or safe house for anyone who wishes to escape persecution or violence.  The perpetrators understand that they are not allowed to set foot in that area. The maris will act as a lawyer /mediator to resolve the issues. Another layer of this complex legal system involves the Djungaya (manager/facilitator) who polices the implementation of the resolution.

We are concerned that our Federal and Territory Governments are not acknowledging that we are still subject to our own djalkirri rom (foundation law) created by Wangarr (God) since time immemorial.  For this reason we wish to reassure you that there are many laws, practices and protocols that we must adhere to as strong Yolngu women according to the djalkirri rom. It is this law that provides safety and protection for all Yolngu. Yolngu law is within our body, our bones, our blood, connecting everything. It is sacred, as our lives and bodies are sacred, connecting us to the land.

We thank you for taking an interest in our situation and feel hopeful about your visit to Darwin.

Kind Regards,

Nyomba Gandangu

Co-chairperson of the Makarr Dhuni Forum (the second tier of the Yolngu Ngarra – Parliament, representing all of the clans of Elcho Island)

On behalf of The Makarr Dhuni Women’s Forum

To read Navi Pillay’s response to her visit to Australia, see: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-05-25/un-rights-chief-attacks-disturbing-policies/2730650

The AHED Project supports the Makarr Dhuni Forum

This video was produced independent of Why Warriors Pty Ltd, and are the views of the speaker, further information may be found where this video was originally posted on YouTube. I’m sure those who created this video would appreciate if it was passed on to others especially to those in Government positions, as that is who this message was written for.