Yananymul Mununggurr
Chief Executive Officer
Laynhapuy Homelands Association Incorporated
20.06.09
No takeover of Aboriginal town camps
Full funding, housing and services for all communities and homelands
No blanket welfare quarantines
Reinstate the Racial Discrimination Act (1975)
Aboriginal control of Aboriginal affairs
Yananymul Mununggurr Homelands speech 20.06.09
ACTU speech Homelands Policy
I have been asked to talk about the Territory Government’s new policy for remote indigenous communities A Working Future – particularly as it relates to ‘homelands’.
But the Northern Territory policy cannot be seen in isolation from what is happening at the Commonwealth level. Next week is two years since Mal Brough and John Howard launched their ‘Intervention’ into the lives and communities of Indigenous people.
An ‘Intervention’, that more than anything else, exposed the neglect and pretend ignorance of successive generations of government. An Intervention that tried to blame Indigenous culture, our ‘permit system’ and ‘land rights’ for their ignorance and lack of action over decades.
It is important that people understand that A Working Future is in many ways an extension of recent Commonwealth thinking about indigenous affairs. The Intervention was focussed on major communities. The subsequent MOU in September 2007 on remote housing and related infrastructure services implemented a ‘ban’ on new housing in homelands. It sought to normalise and mainstream Indigenous people as much as to tackle disadvantage.
Then a few months ago in December 2008, the Council of Australian Governments entered into Partnership Agreements of remote services and indigenous housing which confirmed this focus on major communities – 15 in the NT – and re-stated the ban on the growth of homelands. It was a partnership between Governments, not between Government and Indigenous Australians. Now A Working Future has re-stated this position gain, re-affirming the ban on homeland growth but focussing on 20 major communities, not just the 15 identified by the Commonwealth out of the 73 prescribed communities under the Intervention. So in many ways the Territory Government has simply agreed to implement Canberra’s plan, while adding a bit of its own flavour.
The Territory Government has simply continued the completely inadequate level of funding for municipal and essential services in homelands that was passed over to it by the Commonwealth along with the responsibility for homelands when they signed the MOU in 2007. A level of funding that has not been increased in real terms for about a decade.
It is important for us all to remember that until very recently homelands were the responsibility of the Commonwealth. It is the Commonwealth that is responsible for the historic lack of investment in infrastructure, the lack of investment in economic and community development, and indeed for lack of investment in health, education and housing in homelands given the structure of Commonwealth – Territory financial relations. The Commonwealth is responsible for the ‘backlog of unmet need and the ‘gap’ that now needs to be closed. It also needs to be remembered that both sides of politics at both levels of government are guilty of this neglect – as both have had significant terms in government since 1970.
To give credit where credit is due, both the Commonwealth and the Territory are now making a significant financial effort to turn things around in some respects – at least for the major communities. The increased commitment of funds to housing in major communities is welcomed, as are the commitments to services such as policing, health, and education.
However, it must be said that in our major communities in NE Arnhem Land there is not yet much to see for this promised investment of funds. And of course it is not targeted for homelands.
The commitment by Minister Macklin to reinstate the Racial Discrimination Act is also welcomed. Tying housing and infrastructure development to ‘land tenure reform’, however, is not. Indigenous people are being asked to give up the basis of their culture and social organisation, and their only economic asset, in return for public housing and other assistance that any other Australian citizens with the same socio-economic status would be entitled to.
Like the National Partnership agreements on remote services and housing, A Working Future is based on a perspective of what is good for my people, that has not come from my people. It has not come from homelands people.
What is particularly concerning is that neither the Commonwealth nor the Territory Governments seem capable of embracing a long term vision for the social and economic development of homelands, or for the future of Indigenous people who wish to sustain their culture and tradition.
We have such a vision for the Laynhapuy homelands, but we need those in power to understand us, trust us and support us. As Pat Dodson said, Government seems ready to let homelands ‘wither on the vine’, which is what will happen if only current levels of inadequate funding are maintained. Particularly in relation to new housing. Our homelands have had no funds for new housing since 2003.
Before I talk specifically about the homelands component of A Working Future, let me make it perfectly clear that I am not opposed to Government investing in major communities – this is long overdue. Let me also say that I am speaking only for my own area and Yolngu people of NE Arnhem Land.
I believe homelands are of fundamental importance to Indigenous people and the survival of culture across the Territory. However, I recognise that the development of homelands has been different in different parts of the NT. Each homeland location or group of homelands poses different opportunities and challenges. An effective homelands policy must be able to accommodate these differences. The current policy may work well for some homelands, but it is not appropriate for the Laynhapuy homelands region of NE Arnhem Land.
There are some common misconceptions about homelands that are often repeated in the media and by politicians, that I want to clear up. Some of these seem to underpin A Working Future.
Myth 1
Homelands people are somehow trapped in their homelands, which are being kept as ‘cultural museums’. We choose to live on our homelands – our traditional clan estates. And it is our human right as Indigenous people to do so. We chose to move back to our homelands in the early 1970’s and have chosen to remain there since. No one is forcing us.
We are not ignorant or unaware of how people live in big communities, towns and cities. We choose to live in our homelands because this is a better life for our people – including our children. You may not understand this, but you do not know our law, ceremony, culture, or kinship and how these tie us to our particular country. It is not right for us to go and live on other people’s land in the big communities or elsewhere.
Myth 2
Homelands are not permanently occupied – that they are just weekenders, or are inhabited by nothing but lizards, insects and footprints. This is not an accurate or complete perspective – particularly in NE Arnhem Land. Most homelands, particularly the larger homelands, are permanently occupied. Laynhapuy Homelands Association represents 25 permanently occupied homeland communities in NE Arnhem Land with a combined population of about 1,200 people. They are occupied 12 months of the year.
In addition to these homelands, Laynhapuy has 4 smaller homelands that are not permanently occupied. Our homelands range in size from small family groups to over 150 permanent residents. Our homelands represent about 5% of the 560 homelands in the Territory, and about 12% of the estimated 10,000 homelands population.
Homelands that are identified as not permanently occupied do not attract funding support, and have not done so for many years. Even if a homeland is not permanently occupied it is necessary to maintain the building and infrastructure assets to ensure they are not destroyed by annual bush fires, termites, etc. Usually there are understandable reasons why homelands become unoccupied and may remain so for periods of time. It may be that significant individuals have passed away, or have had to go elsewhere for medical care. It could be that key services such as water have failed and there is a long period before funding and subsequent repair. It could be that anticipated services such as schooling have never been delivered. Overcrowding may also force people to move, as does limited access during the wet season.
These people have not abandoned their homeland or country – practical circumstances simply force them to live elsewhere during this time. It is the law, the ceremony, the knowledge, the spiritual connection, and family that make homelands significant to particular individuals. This can never be abandoned.
Myth 3
People have moved away from established service centres. Yolngu in the Laynhapuy area have never completely left their traditional clan estates, although many moved into the Yirrkala mission over a short period between 1936 and 1970 – directly in response to social tension in the main communities and the onslaught of alcohol and other problems that came with the establishment of Nhulunbuy and the mine.
The homelands in this region have existed since early 1970s when people started to again live permanently on their traditional lands – building houses, constructing airstrips and establishing bores. Most of the Laynhapuy Homelands pre-date Northern Territory self-government, pre-date land rights, and the rebuilding of Darwin after Cyclone Tracey. They certainly predate the modern development of non-indigenous communities such as Palmerston or Dundee Beach.
It is a myth that homelands people have moved away from established service centres and are thereby imposing additional costs on the taxpayer and Government. The fact is that these homeland communities have largely been bypassed by Government in the develop- ment of publicly subsidised infrastructure and services elsewhere in the Territory.
Myth 4
The costs of maintaining homelands is excessive and remote homelands have received more than their fair share. For the Laynhapuy Homelands, funding for Municipal and Essential Services (power, water, airstrips, tips, rubbish collection) is around about $580 per person per year, and for housing maintenance about $275 per person per year. A total of about $860 per person per year.
Our members pay rent and power charges in addition to this, and recently purchased their own community tractors to support these services . Power is charged at significantly more than the subsidised rate available to other Territorians.
How does this compare to the public subsidy for urban services and housing for other Territorians – especially when you remember that homeland residents don’t usually benefit from funding of things such as public transport, sport & recreation, the arts, libraries, public swimming pools and so on?
The fact is that we do not know how it compares, because Government has not done the hard work of analysis and modelling.
How many other Territorians pay for their own school buildings? Through pooling their Isolated Students Allowance, homeland parents have even funded their own secondary school classroom and boarding facility at Garrthalala homeland..
Myth 5
Opportunities and wellbeing are better in the big communities. Research shows homeland people are healthier. There is less violence and crime.
There is virtually no alcohol, drugs or gambling. Most people are working through CDEP. No work no pay. They are not receiving sit down money. More Yolngu in homelands have salaried jobs as Rangers, Health Workers, Teacher and Teachers Aides, than are employed in the nearby major communities. Homelands people are starting to access more training opportunities because of our Association’s training coordination role.
Although our housing is overcrowded and often very old, it is better maintained, looked after and lasts longer than in major communities because we don’t have the alcohol and the violence. We have better school attendance, and through our secondary school program we have made a very significant contribution to the number of Indigenous children graduating in the NT.
As an organisation of homelands we employ 117 people, 70% of whom are Yolngu. We run a construction and civil works business, an airline charter business, health service, ranger program, and other activities. We have recently employed an enterprise development officer. Homelands perhaps have better economic development potential than larger communities. Ownership of land and resources is clearer, communities are more stable and less dysfunctional, the natural and cultural assets on which tourism and land management enterprises can develop are in the homelands. Homeland life requires independence and resilience. Homelands people are the major producers of traditional indigenous art.
Homelands still face many challenges and there is much to be done, but it is wrong to see our physical isolation only as a disadvantage, and to assume bigger more urbanised communities are the answer to ‘Closing the Gap’.
Myth 6
Land Tenure arrangements are the biggest obstacle to economic development and related opportunities for employment and income, and essential for Government investment in housing, infrastructure and services.
There is secure land tenure. It is our communally owned inalienable freehold title under the Aboriginal Land Rights Act. Our land can already be leased if we agree to the terms.
There are areas on aboriginal land where ‘town leases’ and sub-leases already exist to test this new idea. How many Yolngu homeowners, landlords or renters, Yolngu businesses, Yolngu employees are there in Nhulunbuy after 40 years of ‘town leasing’? Basically none.
Land tenure is only one small part of a much bigger picture. Our homelands have some 150 houses, 9 clinics 10 school buildings, homeland offices, bores, tanks, airstrips. Most of this has been government funded over the past 30 years. These assets are under no threat and are used for the intended purposes.
What has changed? Why has ‘secure land tenure’ suddenly become the holy grail for government after refusing to negotiate leases for decades? We do not believe ‘secure land tenure’ is the real obstacle to government investing in our homelands. We believe government simply sees a different future for our people. But we will negotiate leases on our terms if that is what the Government requires.
Myth 7
They say that Homelands are not under threat. WRONG!
A Working Future does not say that funding to our homelands will be cut. It does not say that our people will be forced to move. What is says, is that for our homelands things are likely to stay the same. This is NOT okay. We do not want this slow death. We have been working for 30 years to grow and develop our homelands. To improve our opportunities and our standard of living, our self-determination and independence. We have no intention of giving up now – of stopping and staying the same.
To address sub-standard housing, to address overcrowding, to further improve health and education, and develop enterprise opportunities we need to be able to access funding assistance for housing. We need to ‘Close the Gap’ on homelands as well. More importantly, we need to ‘Close the Knowledge Gap’ that the Canberra bureaucrats have.
A ‘ban’ on new housing leaves us with nowhere to go. Our houses will just become more overcrowded and deteriorate faster.
The reality is that our people are very poor. For the most part they would not be eligible for, or be able to afford, any of the housing finance schemes available. We are entitled to housing assistance and we expect government to work with us to find appropriate and affordable ways to provide that assistance. Social housing assistance comes in many forms around Australia and across the world. It is not appropriate for Government to say that Aboriginal land is private land and not suitable for a ‘public housing model’ and offer no alternative. This is just further neglect of our people’s needs and citizenship entitlements.
I call on both the Territory and the Australian Government to work with us to find a sustainable solution to this homeland housing issue. They are both responsible for the ‘ban’ on new housing, and both must help find a solution.
IN SUMMARY
1.
Our concern about the approach of both the Territory and Australian governments is that they have no long term vision for homelands that takes into account our aspirations.
Just maintaining the status quo is to maintain a situation of long term neglect – most of which is the Australian Government’s responsibility.
2.
No serious attempt has been made at research, economic modelling or cost-benefit analyses of the social, cultural, economic or environmental impact of this homeland policy. What are the costs and benefits of homelands compared to major communities, compared to mainstream towns – not just for the government but also for Yolngu?
We simply do not know since the work is yet to be done. Personally I believe that parallel Commonwealth and Territory Parliamentary inquiries are needed to ensure this work is done thoroughly and independently. It is 20 years since the Blanchard inquiry into homelands.
3.
While we support significant new Government investment in all major indigenous communities, we are cautious about Government capacity to delivery, and the timeframes. We can only hope. The wholesale alienation of community land through long term leases is also of concern. But don’t improve the wellbeing of major communities at the expense of homelands people. Don’t destroy what we have been building up. The challenges and solutions for homelands are different.
4.
Consult with us in good faith. Listen and learn from us, and really look at what is working for Yolngu people and build on that. We need local, incremental solutions – not grand plans delivered from on high. When our people met and put their trust in Pat Dodson, we believed we were consulting about how to develop a better future for homelands. But instead the government gave us a strategy for ‘growth towns’ – that is why we are angry.
We are not happy with A Working Future and the ideas behind it in regards to the future for homelands. We hope the Territory Government and the Australian Government have now got that message. We will not give up the fight for our rights, but we will work with them to achieve our vision for homelands – which we believe is in the long term interest of all Territorians and Australians and Yolngu.
In this regard we welcome the offer of Chief Minister Henderson to meet with our Mala Leaders in our homelands on the 29th July to discuss our concerns and find a way forward.
Thank you for listening.
Yananymul Mununggurr
Chief Executive Officer
Laynhapuy Homelands Association Incorporated
20.06.09