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.

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

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)

• Limitations or Limit conditions:
  • Underlying conditions or sets of situations that cause or initiate the cycle of “poverty”, marginalisation oppression or dependency.
• Predatory systems:
  • These are systems that are perpetuating the oppression cycle by taking advantage of the limitations people experience. These systems need to be identified and negated to free people from the cycle.

As discussed in the previous article Cultural Spaces (An example of the Limit Conditions the people face), one of the limit conditions that create Indigenous “poverty” is that Aboriginal people must engage in foreign cultural spaces, that are controlled by the Dominant Culture.  These spaces marginalise Indigenous groups and they struggle to access the necessary information they need to make choices, find solutions, or communicate their needs.

However this does not explain the factors that keep people from conquering the strange cultural spaces of the “white man’s” world.  In the article on Indigenous poverty we called these factors predatory systems.  In this article I put forward some suggestions as to what specific predatory systems maintain this situation.  These are:

• The Convenience of Maintaining English Dominance
  • Negotiating in English controlled environments
  • Discouraging the development and use of Local Languages
• Low expectations for engaging with Indigenous knowledge and systems
• Accepting short term personnel turn over
• Lack of dependence on local Indigenous workforce
• Systematic favouring of short term outcomes over effective communication
• Reporting of false positives

Explaining myself

Now before I get to that I must point out that this is an extremely complex topic, and that it is very difficult to simplify things as I have.  The mechanisms that maintain the marginalisation of Indigenous  groups are very very complex and subtle.  While there are individuals who take advantage of people’s marginalisation consciously - the chaos of remote communities encourages corruption - most Dominant culture (DC) systems are not consciously designed to oppress people.  But, because I attempt to identify the advantages the Dominant culture might be getting from maintaining Indigenous marginalisation, what I write will be controversial to some, or many.   So please give me some credit that I am not intending to blame anyone and I know I am over simplifying.  But people have been asking for me to write about this, and I would like to start the discussion. So here are my flawed ideas of what are some of the predatory mechanisms maintaining Indigenous disadvantage (please comment on these, I would like others opinions).

I have grouped the predatory mechanism under headings describing the limit conditions they prey on.

Language barriers

The  Convenience of Maintaining English Dominance

Mechanism: English only speakers working in Indigenous communities unknowingly create an advantage to themselves by maintaining an English only environment, by using English as the dominant language or the only language in the work place and at meetings. In this way they empower themselves at the expense of the people, because they prevent people from easily getting the information they require to escape their dependency on these English first language workers.

Advantage: Why does this happen? This system of marginalisation is maintained largely because it is easier for DC workers to use their own native language “English” than working with the difficulty of learning and  utilising local languages.

Negotiating in English controlled environments

Mechanism: Similarly Government and NGOs, by ignoring Indigenous languages, are better able to control the conditions and outcomes of negotiations, surveys, consultations and even education, because in the English speaking environment they create, they limit peoples ability to compete and challenge government workers policies, views and arguments.

Advantage: Government, NGOs and other entities benefit by being able to more easily control, influence  and dominate negotiations.  They can even subconsciously utilise misinformation to get the result they want.

Discouraging the development and use of Local Languages

Mechanism:Government and NGOs working in Aboriginal remote communities, refuse to require or adequately support the training of staff in local Indigenous languages.  Everyone believes that it is too hard.  If they ensured staff developed local language skills this would make the interaction between Indigenous people and the DC an exchange of information between equal parties, rather then all the effort to overcome the language gap being forced on the Indigenous people. Furthermore, DC departments and NGOs do not encourage the production of resources, training, or even dictionaries in Indigenous languages. Their excuse for this is the that people need to just learn English. Only English cannot be learnt well (to a professional level) without utilising Indigenous languages to teach new complex ideas or without access to cross language dictionaries for professional reference. It takes many many years of effective exchange of information between two cultures to effectively chart complex terminology within each language – so that rich meanings can be exchanged. The DC refuses to start this journey in a serious way.

Advantage: The advantage for the system in doing nothing, is that Government and organisations don’t have to put in the money or the effort to change the way they do things. The short term financial gains on sticking with English only win over long term empowerment of Indigenous people.  A case in point is the NT Government’s recent introduction of an English only policy for remote community schools (2009-2010), which strips resources for local language training and utilisation out of remote schools. They did this because of a poorly researched belief that ignoring local languages will some how teach English more effectively. The international evidence shows that ESL kids who learn how to read and write in their own language first are more easily able to learn English, and learn it better than English only speakers.   But for the NT Education department system the savings in money and organisational complexity is clear, they can discard the hippy language experts and even the local Indigenous Teachers, who now have little purpose for being there. In this way the system favours the status quo, English language deficiency in Indigenous communities.

Lack of understanding about Dominant culture systems and knowledge.

Low expectations for engaging with Indigenous knowledge and systems

Mechanism: The imposition of Western culture and ways keeps Dominant Culture (DC) workers comfortable while dis-empowering local Indigenous people, because Indigenous people in remote communities have very little knowledge of how the Western world works (and vice versa). DC workers are not required to truly participate in or learn Indigenous ways of doing things. So they do not learn the difficulties Indigenous people face nor how to use local knowledge to help the people learn DC knowledge.  And the lack of engagement in understanding Indigneous systems prevents DC systems such as policing and education from fitting in with Indigenous systems that would give people more control.

Advantage: Low expectations in this area makes it easier for Government and other organisation to recruit workers even though they are less effective. By ignoring cultural issues, Indigenous understandings, and local Aboriginal systems, short term targets are sometimes met (ie you can get things done quickly), but long term achievements are undermined.

Instability of Personnel and Relationships with the non-indigenous world.

Accepting short term personnel turn over.

Mechanism: There is constant replacement and change in DC personnel in Remote Aboriginal Communities. Most stay 6 months to 2 years. Short term contracts are the accepted norm and there are few services to support personnel to stay in communities long term.  The constant change of personnel in communities undermines stability, relationships, and the creation of useful corporate knowledge/history.  The result is that organisations never learn from their mistakes and continue to push ideas that are based on old assumptions and continue to have negative impacts.

Advantage: This at first glance would not seem to benefit the Australian system because it is costly and ineffective. But it does allow feel good benefits to the Australian mainstream and the Individuals invoved.  I believe this is significant enough to maintain this kind of inefficiency. Going and working in Arnhem Land or other remote communities for a short stint, alleviates our sense of guilt about the Indigenous “problem” in Australia. This is a hard thing to say, but most if not all people (including ourselves at times) tend to feel a sense of “well I’ve done something to help the Indigenous people.” This helps us in the mainstream individually and collectively to feel good about our efforts for Indigenous people and even justifies a subtle blaming of the people themselves. The Australian Mainstream can still effectively say, “Look we are trying to help Indigenous people but its not working, they are not doing enough themselves.” So this “Instability Shark” works in this way; the DC gets the benefits of feeling like it is doing something, without the very difficult task of creating, and supporting long term stability in the remote work force (See our article on Supporting Dominant Culture Personnel to explore how this might be overcome).

Lack of dependence on local workforce.

Mechanism: Indigenous communities are driven by a false economy. Government grants, funds and welfare are the main sources of income, both personal and for businesses, in remote towns.  And alot of this money actually goes to pay income for DC personnel who have come from outside the community.  This situation never improves because the availability of  Government monies, and the tight DC time frames, make it more convenient to simply import new DC personnel when a job needs to be done, rather than train Indigenous people.  Training of local personnel is a lower priority than getting program outcomes.  This is partly because most Government departments consider it someone elses job to do the training.  But the simple fact is the DC simply does not need the local people. In a sense the locals get in the way of building infrastructure, acculturating (…oops, I mean educating), developing industries and running shire council services. This is the despite the fact that these things are suppose to be of benefit to the locals.  Contrast this with 40 years ago when the Christian missions in North East Arnhem had to run everything without masses of funding and access to fly in personnel. They, by simple need, were dependent on training Yolŋu (as there was no one else to do the work that needed to be done) and as a result by 1978 the local people were doing almost everything in the community, including teams of locals building houses, and local bookkeepers.

Advantage: There is of course a huge financial benefit for most personnel who take positions in remote Aboriginal communities, that may play some role in perpetuating the situation.  Like mine workers it is often convenient to stay a while, save your dough and take your cash back south to buy a house.  Plus it is simply easier, and it has become part of the DC way in the “Indigenous Industry”, to rely on enticing contractors and ready trained personnel, with big pay packets, than to deal with the challenges of training Indigenous people.  But the primarily benefit is that the DC (and the Government is a big part of this) is more focused on outcomes than people.  They get more done, much quicker,  if they are not dependent on local labour.  Importing workers ensures jobs get done quickly, statistics get filled, grants get acquitted, and politicians get re-elected.  The alternative, relying on the local workforce is the more difficult and slower path.  The time spent training, upskilling, and letting the people gain experience, slows progress in measurable outcomes – at first.  The hump of getting the first set of locals trained and then relying on them in their inexperience in the next round of work, with the inevitable media outrage at things undone (eg. houses un-built)  is just too much for the DC to take.

Difficulty communicating to Dominant Culture systems.

Systematic favouring of short term outcomes over effective communication.

Mechanism: The Indigenous “Industry” in the NT is a money spinner for the NT government and economy. Solving the problems through better communication might actually reduce the amount of money spent by the Federal Government on communities. While I doubt most in the NT Government actually plan to negate outcomes (some in the private sector definitely take advantage), the drive to be truly cost effective and therefore locally effective in the long term is just not there. Rather the focus seems to be on short term outcomes, or band aid measures.

Advantage: This benefits bureaucrat portfolios, while giving only lip service to long term goals. We all know of the shonky tradesmen in the private sector that will do a dodgy job to save money, well government funding budgets work the other way around. Do a job inefficiently and spend more of your budget may just get you a bigger budget next time round, resulting in more jobs for inefficient buddies (Again I’m not saying this is intentional – but correct me if I am wrong).

Reporting of false positives.

Mechanism: It is easy to create false positives by using poor communication. Even if you genuinely want to be honest, it is all too easy to use good processes and investigate clearly positive comments and communications, while paying limited attention to negative comments and results. Additionally, emphasising the outcomes one is looking for, results in a failure to communicate problems and allow reflection on how people are not being served.

Advantage: False positives (saying something had fantastic outcomes when it really did not)  when reporting on outcomes in Indigenous communities help governments, NGOS and privates businesses working in the “Indigenous industry” presents a good picture to their funders and their voters (who are usually not Indigenous).