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.

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

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)

National Indigenous Times: Indigenous poverty as
'morally outrageous' as torture: Amnesty head
19 Nov 09: "The poverty experienced by many Aboriginal
people is as morally reprehensible as torture and must be
eradicated, Amnesty International secretary-general Irene
Khan says."  http://www.nit.com.au/story.aspx?id=19020

Also see SMH

Strong words, but is such ‘advocacy’ helpful.  I argue that moralistic bites such as this are in fact dangerous.  While advocates feel that such statements point out government failures, they can actually be harmful to the people they are meant to protect .

First of all, this statement suggests there is a simple problem, “poverty”.  This is not the case. The conditions she saw were in part conditions that people were choosing to live in, because they wanted to live on their home lands (traditional estates) where there are few amenities.  And there are also many aspects of Indigenous lifestyle, such as sitting in the dirt, which are lifestyle choices but are easily interpreted as something negative and used as emotive devices (eg. The opening paragraph to Khan’s edited press speech).  This is not classic “poverty”.  Is it rather the effect of abuses of rights and the outcome of a massive cultural gap, resulting in marginalisation and poor education. Khan does go on to talk about rights and education and marginalisation, but her emotive language creates confusion rather than clarifying the issues to be tackled.  This point was very clearly and insightfully expressed by a reader on crikey (click link and scroll down to read his article)

Second, such language is usually designed to catch attention in order to say more important things.  In this case Khan used such statements to talk about the discriminatory nature of  policies such as income management.  The problem is, what sticks in the mainstreams psyche is not her sensible comments about changing policies that force people to spend hundreds of dollars to drive into disfunctional communities to use their pensions.  What sticks are those words above which label the Indigenous people as having a problem.  Like there is some sort of disease out there that only effects Australian Aboriginal people. People now even refer to the generic “Indigenous problem”.

Lets do some discourse analysis.  This statement defines the situation of Aboriginal Australian’s as:

• living in ‘poverty’.  Poverty implies a number of things, hopelessness, helplessness and a lack of resources.  This objectifies these Aborignal people as victims, suggesting that they need a humanitarian savior.  For most Indigenous people this is unfair. In remote communities they may be depressed, but they are not without hope. They are not helpless, but may feel like they cannot be heard or cannot win, yet they do keep fighting.  They have many resources, but often have difficulty using them.
• a “moral” issue.  This lays blame on everyone suggesting that  Australians are not good people. That while this Indigenous problem exists its like Australians are committing torture. This is unfair.  Many Australians react to this by blaming Indigenous people in return (eg. See comments on SHM).
• needing “eradication”.  Suggesting, that if the right resources are applied, the ‘problem’ could just be removed.  Furthermore, drawing on the ‘moral’ imperative she has established, ‘eradication’ insists that immediate and extreme action is required.

Khans statements are examples of the extreme emotive hyperbole, which is so common today when talking about the difficulties faced by Indigenous communities.  It does less to empower Indigenous people or their voice than it empowers government and other service providers to implement simplistic, rushed and broad brush solutions.  The very kind of policy most advocacy tries to disable after the fact.  It was also this kind of over the top statement that the Howard Government used to force the ‘Intervention’ through.  And it was so effective that most politicians were not even game to touch the subject and the Australian public went all bleeding heart, righteous paternalist.   Since then in the NT even the more sensible “Close the Gap” campaign, is being used widely by NT and Federal Governments as a catch cry to deny Indigenous rights and force things on communities, such as English only education and land leases, without negotiation or real consultation. Why? Because from the politicians perspective the moral imperative of the “Gap” statistics and advocacy slogans mandates Government to act quickly (and thus for some reason stupidly and abusively).  In fact the Governments in Canberra and Darwin act like if they do not force the statistics to improve before the next election, the ‘Gap’ just might be one more hole their election hopes will fall in.  The result- Indigenous people get crushed in the rush and no real solutions are established.

While we continue to advocate by labeling problems we continue to label Aboriginal people and empower the government powered steamroller to run over peoples lives, and enable racist blaming. What is needed is good debate about the real situation faced by people, the underling causes, and the complex solutions needed, rather than more denouncing of the “Indigenous problem”.  Rather than simply highlighting the problems, advocacy must start highlighting complexity, revealing local needs and enabling dialogue between diverse Indigenous and non-Indigenous voices.