Next Monday, ANU Press is launching a
book edited by Nicolas Petersen and Fred Myers titled Experiments in Self Determination: Histories of the Outstation Movement
in Australia, which explores the history of the outstation movement in
remote Australia through a series of case studies of particular outstations
which interrogate the complex interactions between demography, attachment to
country, community aspirations, cosmology and culture, all within the shadow of
the overarching and changeable demands of government policy.
I haven’t read the book, but a quick scan of its contents
and the chapter authors convinces me that it will be an important book for
anyone keen to understand Indigenous (and primarily Aboriginal) perspectives on
the history of the last fifty years across remote Australia.
At its most abstract level, the debate has swung between
those who argue that residency on outstations has no economic basis nor future,
versus those who argue that there are strong social , cultural and even health
reasons for supporting small remote outstation communities.
So for example, in March 2015, then Prime Minister Tony
Abbott made a statement
suggesting that Governments could not subsidise the ‘lifestyle choices‘ of
Indigenous people to live on remote communities and homelands.
Against this view, see the 2009 report
commissioned by AMSANT, the Institute for Cultural Survival and the Miwatj
Heath Service on the health benefits of living on country. See also a congruent
report
outlining the health benefits of participation in caring for country
activities.
It is fair to say that government policy has emerged from a
period of near universal antagonism to the notion of outstations (or homelands
as they are often called) and entered a policy space characterised by a hefty
degree of confusion.
In recent years, there has been a complex chess game between
the Commonwealth and the states over responsibility for municipal support for
remote communities including outstations. The Commonwealth Government finally
bit the bullet in 2013 and announced it would no longer fund these services
(helped in the NT by a longer funding tail embedded in the National Partnership
Agreement on Stronger Futures in the Northern Territory).
The fundamental problem here from a policy perspective is structural.
That is, local governments which fund these services for non-Indigenous
communities has historically not been required to do the same in the Indigenous
realm. Moreover, local government jurisdictions are patchy in their coverage
with large unincorporated areas still existing in some states, and its funding
base is flawed. So for example, the Government funding flowing to local
governments is linked to population levels and not need. And from an indigenous
perspective, the reliance on rates of many local governments is not suited to
the realities of Indigenous ownership of non-commercial tracts of land which
are not able to sustain a rates base.
The policy confusion arises because different approaches
towards support of outstations and small remote communities have opened up
between the states, and the Commonwealth is largely running dead.
Western Australia has its own history of debate
over the future of remote communities including outstations. In 2014, the Western
Australian Government announced a decision to defund remote communities (see here and here),
which it subsequently back-tracked
on in favour of a review/consultation process which is ongoing.
The risk that the Western Australian Government will attempt
to walk away from support for many small communities and outstations is still
very real.
However, in the Northern Territory, the election of the
Giles CLP Government in 2012 built largely on splitting a significant number of
bush electorates away from Labor, and the new Territory Government’s
realisation that it will need to work extremely hard to retain those
electorates in this year’s election, has meant that the CLP Government has
adopted a much more supporting attitude and policy towards outstations and
homelands. The personal roles and influence of Indigenous Ministers such as
Alison Anderson (now an independent) and Bess Price has clearly been influential
too.
The Northern Territory Governments policy on Homelands is
set out in a policy
document titled Homelands Policy: A
shared Responsibility dated March 2015, although its website indicates that the policy is
under review. The shared responsibility refers to the responsibilities of
governments, residents and landowners. For a perspective from the left, see the
critique
of the policy published by Jon Altman shortly following its release. To its
credit, the NT Government has committed to funding transparency and the web
site provides lists approved funding for outstations. Funding allocations
overall appear to be around $30m per annum (refer to the Fact
Sheet).
The Commonwealth, for its part, appears to have placed outstations
firmly on the backburner. It does not appear to have a clear policy framework,
apart from managing the exit from its MUNS funding responsibilities. The mantra
‘these are state and territory responsibilities’ holds sway in the corridors of
the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet.
In the NT, the Commonwealth has the luxury of access to the Aboriginal
Benefits Account which allows the Minister to make relatively random and small grants
available to outstations. A proposal originating under the previous Government to
make available an envelope of some $40m for outstation support subject to the ABA
Advisory committee developing a policy framework appears to have stalled.
During the 2012–13 financial year the ABA Advisory Committee developed a
Homelands Policy Framework which outlines a more strategic approach for using
ABA funds to support homelands. The proposal was developed after extensive
consideration of the issue by the committee and its Homelands Subcommittee. The
document was endorsed by the ABA Advisory Committee at its meeting in November
2012 and forwarded to Minister Macklin in February 2013. The report advises
that the Department is currently working with the ABA Advisory Committee on
options for implementing the framework.
The Minister announced the results
of last ABA Funding Round in June 2015. Many of the grants are allocated to
outstations for a range of purposes. Of the 43 approved grants, at least 13
appear to be directed towards assistance for outstations.
As mentioned in a previous blog post, there has not yet been
an announcement of the ABA grants arising from the September 2015 round, and
this is now well overdue. With a Federal election set to be announced within
weeks, and a caretaker period preventing ministerial funding decisions, we can
expect announcements very shortly. Of course it is possible that the Minister
has made decisions, and decided not to announce them. The scope for politicised
use of the ABA is quite high given its limited geographical scope (it can only
be used in the NT) and the fact that the Minister who can make unilateral decisions
(albeit after advice from the ABA Advisory Committee) is himself an NT Senator and
there is an NT election scheduled for later this year. The non-announcement of funding
decisions would be prima facie indicators of political trickiness.
On a related topic, I understand that the NT and Commonwealth
Governments last year jointly commissioned a review of Homelands Assets and
Access by the Alice Springs based Centre for Appropriate Technology. The report
was designed to assist the Commonwealth to finalise its approach to implementation
of the ABA Homelands policy. CAT apparently finalised the report a couple of
months ago, however it has been held up in Minister Scullion’s Office and is
yet to be released.
Contrary to the expectations of many outstation resource agencies,
the results of the report have not been discussed with them in draft, leading
to an increasing sense of anxiety. Rumours emanating from the NT bureaucracy suggest
that the Minister may be considering the establishment of an ‘ABA Corporation’
to manage and expend the $40m allocated to implementation of the ABA policy.
If these rumours have substance, such a move, particularly
if announced without consultation and discussion, would engender fears amongst
many interests, including the land councils, that the funds were being ‘pre-allocated’
and locked up in advance of the forthcoming federal election.
To sum up, the aspirations of thousands of Indigenous
citizens to live in outstations and homelands continues to challenge Australia’s
tendency towards mono-cultural modes of economic and social life. Governments
appear unable to drive the structural and institutional changes which would
allow funding support to flow automatically for the essential services which most
Australians take for granted.
The NT, to its credit, has turned a corner and appears more
open to accepting the reality of diverse remote modes of living. However it
will eventually hit the constraint of limited funding. The key to a sustainable
national policy framework for the nation lies within the Commonwealth Government.
Unfortunately, the Commonwealth appears to be lagging, and sees
all policy through funding lenses rather than as part of a coherent and
synergistic framework built on freedom of choice for all citizens.
To end where I began, I will read the new Peterson and Myers
book with interest not least because an understanding of the historical roots of
the outstation movement is essential to understanding the complexities of the issues
we are dealing with today. I suggest that anyone else with an interest in
remote Australia do the same.
No comments:
Post a Comment