How to Reposition the Social, Cultural and Economic Value

GALNYA ON WOKA

PROSPERITY ON COUNTRY:

HOW TO REPOSITION THE SOCIAL, CULTURAL AND ECONOMIC VALUE

OF INDIGENOUS PEOPLE IN THE

GOULBURN MURRAY REGION

Raelene L. Nixon

ORCID iD: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7532-0995

Submitted in total fulfilment of the requirements of the degree of Doctor of Philosophy University of Melbourne Faculty of Medicine, Dentistry and Health Science December 2020

DECLARATION

This is to certify that:

I. The thesis comprises only my original work towards the PhD II. Due acknowledgment has been made in the text to all other material used III. The thesis is approximately 79 081 words

Raelene Nixon

December 2020

ABSTRACT

Prime Minister Gillard's 'Closing the Gap' speech in February 2011 called on the country's First Peoples to take responsibility for improving their situation. This kind of rhetoric highlights one of the underlying reasons there has been no substantial improvement in the position of Indigenous Australian peoples. Indigenous peoples are predominately identified as 'the problem' and positioned as the agents who need to 'fix it', which ignores the influence of dominant culture in maintaining the current position of Indigenous peoples.

Drawing on the experience and knowledge of Indigenous and government leaders working on strategies to empower Indigenous communities, this thesis captures the work undertaken in the Goulburn Murray region of Victoria in the quest to reposition the social, cultural and economic value of Indigenous peoples.

For substantive change to be made, power relations between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians need to be realigned and dominant social structures reconstituted. Only once these shifts have been made can the country’s original inhabitants enjoy parity in education, health, employment, and economic prosperity. A collective approach that recognises the need for all Australians – Indigenous and non-Indigenous – to play a role in creating these shifts is needed.

This thesis is the story of the Yorta Yorta people’s quest to find prosperity on country to reposition the social, cultural, and economic value of Indigenous people in the Goulburn Murray region of Victoria. The research seeks a solution to address the disparity between Indigenous and non-Indigenous peoples from one regional community’s perspective. A shared sense of humanity is central to repositioning the value. An ability to recognise and envision a world of tolerance, kindness, and acceptance in the hearts and minds of all cultures, regardless of race, colour, or religion, can alter everything. The perspectives of participants throughout the thesis make it clear why repositioning the value of Indigenous people is so important.

Terminology

Throughout this report, the term Indigenous has been used to refer to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. In some circumstances, Yorta Yorta is used for Indigenous people in the Goulburn Murray region, Koori is used for Indigenous people of Victoria. For this document, Goulburn Murray region refers to Yorta Yorta Traditional Owner boundaries, which include the local government areas of the City of Greater Shepparton, Moira Shire Council, and Campaspe Shire Council. While Yorta Yorta boundaries extend into parts of Strathbogie Shire Council, this has not been included in the research presented unless otherwise stated. Even though Yorta Yorta extends beyond the Victorian border into NSW, this research project focused only on the Victorian local government areas, as indicated above.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to start by acknowledging the Traditional Owners on whose land we live, work and continue to learn. I belong to the Gunggari people of South West Queensland. I acknowledge the eight clans on the lands that comprise the Yorta Yorta Nation – Kailtheban, Wollithiga, Moira, Ulupna, Bangerang, Kwat Kwat, Yalaba Yalaba, and Ngurai-illiam-wurrung – where this project was undertaken. The Aboriginal words in my title are not my own – they belong to the Yorta Yorta Nations because this research is on their country. To support the revival of their language and the language of my husband and my son, I choose to use them throughout this project. Galnya translates to honesty, goodness, and happiness or prosperity. Woka means country, and also earth, ground, land, district. Kaiela represents the Goulburn River, and Dungala is the Yorta Yorta word for what is known as the Murray River.

My heartfelt thanks to the leaders who generously gave their time to share their insights, expertise, knowledge, and experiences for this research. I am indebted to the Indigenous organisations – Kaiela Institute, Rumbalara Aboriginal Cooperation, Rumbalara Football Netball Club, Academy of Sport Health and Education – for their generosity, guidance, and support.

Thank you to the Poche Centre for Indigenous Health and the University of Melbourne, including the School of Population and Global Health, the Department of Rural Health, and Murrup Barak, for their guidance and commitment to improving the educational outcomes and building the capacity of Indigenous Australians.

I express my gratitude for the support, guidance, and commitment of my supervisors, Professor Shaun Ewen, Professor Margaret Kelaher, and Doctor Christina Malatzky, for the intellectual and emotional support during my PhD candidature and for going beyond your roles as ‘supervisors’. I consider it a privilege to have worked with you all, and I am grateful for the parts you have played in shaping my development as a researcher. I would also like to make special mention of my Academic Chair, Professor Richard Chenhall, and also Professor Jane Freemantle and Professor Marcia Langton. They each pioneered pathways for my

academic journey. To Joanna Dolan, who edited this dissertation in line with the Australian Standards for Editing Practice.

Thank you to my fellow PhD candidates on Yorta Yorta country, of which there are three – Karyn, Sharon, and Tui. I am so glad we got to do this together, and I hope we can continue that support and look out for each other as we now go out into our perspective areas and work hard to influence change.

My biggest source of inspiration and strength is my mum and sisters: thanks for teaching me that circumstances don't dictate outcomes. My two brothers, one of which passed away suddenly the week my thesis was passed. My last message from him read Congratulations sis big ol Dr sis now aye well done, and all the best. The values we were bought up with taught us that with hard work, we can achieve anything. My family, we had our challenges over the life of this PhD, as many families do. Thank you for your support and understanding over the past few years and for allowing me the time and space to pursue an education.

Finally, I want to thank my greatest cultural and spiritual guide and unofficial mentor, Uncle Paul Briggs. I don't know how you do it. The sacrifices you have made in your pursuit of parity for Aboriginal people are far greater than what I have time to mention here. Thank you for your aspiration and vision of creating a better future for our people.

This year has been particularly challenging. While it feels like the beginning of an amazing revolution for people of colour all over the world, it has been met, at times, with soul-crushing resistance. If everyone were to open themselves up a little more to the prospects of compassion, empathy, and hope, the world would be a much better place for everyone.

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

AAL Australian Aborigines' League ABDU Algabonyah Business Development Unit ABS Australia Bureau of Statistics ACC Algabonyah Community Cabinet ACCO Aboriginal Community Controlled Organisations ACHOs Aboriginal Community Health Organisations ACCHO Aboriginal Community Controlled Health Organisation AEP Algabonyah Employment Program ANU Australian National University ASHE Academy of Sport Health and Education BDU Business Development Unit CAEPR Centre for Aboriginal Economic Policy Research EC Empowered Communities GM Goulburn Murray KRIC Koori Resource and Information Centre KI Kaiela Institute KA Kaiela Arts MCRE Munarra Centre for Regional Excellence NEAL North East Arnhem Land RA Reconciliation Australia RAC Rumbalara Aboriginal Cooperative RFNC Rumbalara Football Netball Club SPPU Shepparton Planning and Policy Unit YYN Yorta Yorta Nations

TABLE OF CONTENTS

DECLARATION ...... 2 ABSTRACT ...... 3 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ...... 5 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ...... 7 TABLE OF CONTENTS...... 9 CHAPTER ONE – INTRODUCTION ...... 15 INTRODUCTION ...... 15 The consequences of History ...... 17 The Yorta Yorta People ...... 18 CONTEXT ...... 20 PROBLEM STATEMENT ...... 21 Why is it a Problem ...... 24 SCOPE ...... 25 The Concepts of ‘Repositioning Value’ and ‘Prosperity on Country’ ...... 26 Scope and Limitations...... 28 Case Study Site...... 29 Community Driven Approach ...... 30 OUTLINE OF THE STUDY ...... 32 SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY ...... 32 INSIDER RESEARCHER AND REFLEXIVITY ...... 34 THESIS OUTLINE ...... 36 CHAPTER TWO – BACKGROUND ...... 38 OVERVIEW ...... 38 HISTORICAL CONTEXT OF THE POSITION OF INDIGENOUS PEOPLES ...... 38 YORTA YORTA CASE STUDY SITE ...... 43 Maloga and Cummeragunja Missions ...... 45 Yorta Yorta Native Title ...... 48 Cultural Resistance A Deliberate Ploy ...... 50 9

Challenges ...... 52 INDIGENOUS ORGANISATIONS ...... 52 Rumbalara Aboriginal Cooperative ...... 52 Yorta Yorta Nation Aboriginal Cooperation ...... 53 Lulla’s Children and Family Centre ...... 54 The Rumbalara Football Netball Club ...... 54 Academy of Sport, Health and Education ...... 57 Ganbina ...... 58 The Kaiela Institute ...... 59 Algabonyah Data Unit ...... 64 DISEMPOWERMENT AND THE DOMINATION OF GOVERNMENT ...... 65 REGIONAL SELF-GOVERNANCE PROPOSAL ...... 67 Investing in Economic Development ...... 69 Employment ...... 70 CULTURE ...... 71 RFNC Nanyak Wall ...... 71 Dungala Children’s Choir ...... 72 Yorta Yorta Language Revitalisation ...... 72 Kaiela Arts ...... 72 CHAPTER SUMMARY ...... 73 CHAPTER THREE – LITERATURE REVIEW ...... 75 OVERVIEW ...... 75 METHODS ...... 76 PREVAILING GOVERNMENT POLICIES ...... 77 Resistance ...... 79 Adaption ...... 80 Oppression ...... 81 RACE AND RACISM ...... 83 Social Construct of White Privilege ...... 85 INDIGENOUS GOVERNANCE ...... 86

Governance Structure in Indigenous Communities ...... 87 SELF-DETERMINATION AND CAPABILITY FRAMEWORKS ...... 90 PROSPERITY AND PARITY ...... 97 Empowered Communities ...... 99 CHAPTER SUMMARY ...... 102 CHAPTER FOUR - RESEARCH DESIGN: THEORY AND METHODS ...... 104 OVERVIEW ...... 104 THEORETICAL UNDERPINNING ...... 105 RESEARCH DESIGN ...... 109 METHODS ...... 110 Methods of Data Collection ...... 111 Project Governance ...... 112 Data Collection Method ...... 112 Interviews ...... 113 Observations ...... 115 Data Analysis ...... 115 ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS ...... 116 CHAPTER SUMMARY ...... 118 CHAPTER FIVE – SOCIAL AND CULTURAL STATUS ...... 120 OVERVIEW ...... 120 THE STATUS OF INDIGENOUS PEOPLES...... 120 Social Class and Social Stratification ...... 124 Fringe Dwellers ...... 128 Attitudes and Beliefs ...... 132 Perception Versus Reality ...... 136 Indigenous Inferiority or White Privilege? ...... 138 Challenging the Status ...... 143 LANGUAGE ...... 146 Language and Cultural Resilience and Cultural Competency ...... 146 Language Is a Tool ...... 147

Invest in Sustaining Indigenous Culture and Traditional Language ...... 148 CHAPTER SUMMARY ...... 150 CHAPTER SIX – YORTA YORTA ALGABONYAH (INDIGENOUS COMMUNITY) ...... 152 OVERVIEW ...... 152 SPIRITUAL DEPRIVATION OF LAND – YORTA YORTA NATIONS NATIVE TITLE ...... 154 LEADERSHIP ...... 156 Challenges in Leadership ...... 162 Leadership Health and Wellbeing ...... 165 STRENGTHS ...... 167 CHALLENGES ...... 172 PROSPERITY AND OPPORTUNITY ...... 177 What Does Prosperity Look Like Here? ...... 177 Something of Value ...... 179 FUTURE VISION...... 180 CHAPTER SUMMARY ...... 182 CHAPTER SEVEN – YORTA YORTA ALGABONYAH GOVERNANCE AND GOVERNMENT ...... 185 OVERVIEW ...... 185 WHAT HAS THE COMMUNITY LEARNED? ...... 189 Bringing Down the Silos ...... 190 Regional Self-governance ...... 194 BARRIERS ...... 198 Overcoming the Barriers ...... 199 COMMUNITY POLITICS INTERNAL DIVISION ...... 201 What Needs to Be Done? ...... 206 GOVERNMENT ...... 209 SELF-DETERMINATION ...... 213 Empowering the Indigenous Community ...... 215 Developing an Investment Strategy ...... 217 TIMING OPPORTUNITIES ...... 218 CHAPTER SUMMARY ...... 220

CHAPTER EIGHT – CONCLUSION ...... 221 OVERVIEW ...... 221 KEY RESEARCH FINDINGS ...... 224 Implications of Research Findings ...... 225 DIRECTIONS OF FUTURE RESEARCH ...... 227 REFLECTIONS ...... 228 CHAPTER SUMMARY ...... 228 REFERENCES ...... 233 APPENDIX A – PLAIN LANGUAGE STATEMENT ...... 246 APPENDIX B – CONSENT FORM ...... 249 APPENDIX C – COMMUNITY INTERVIEW SCHEDULE ...... 251 APPENDIX D – GOVERNMENT INTERVIEW SCHEDULE ...... 254 APPENDIX E-RECRUITMENT MATERIAL ...... 255

CHAPTER ONE – INTRODUCTION

INTRODUCTION Our Huge Task For 150 years there have been un-scrupulous persons using the Abos for charity and religious appeals. In particular the Missionaries of all kinds have used the sufferings of our people as a bait for ‘cadging’ from the public. The Aborigines Progressive Association intends to put a stop to this humbug. We are now entering on a political fight, for the uplifting of our people as a whole, and we will not allow individuals, white or black, to make money for themselves out of our great cause. The Aborigines Progressive Association is a movement of self-help. We rely on the Aborigines themselves for financial support, and we will not betray our trust. Our huge task is to organise and educate ourselves for full Citizen Rights. We must win the respect and support of the white community by showing how unfairly we have been treated in the past under the stupid Aboriginal laws, imposed on us more than fifty years ago, and never brought up-to-date. Aborigines born and reared in contact with civilisation have no need for ‘protection’. We want full education, and the benefit of modern ideas. No Australians are more Australian than we. ‘Jackey-Jackey’ has been a joke for too long – a cruel joke. We have been for too long the victims of missionaries, anthropologists, and comic cartoonists. The white community must be made to realise that we are human beings, the same as themselves. Persecution of Aborigines here is worse than the persecution of Jews in other countries. We have been called a ‘dying race’, but we do not intend to die. We intend to live, and to take our place in the Australian community as citizens with full equality. Such is the aim of the Aborigines Progressive Association, and we intend to work steadily for that aim, no matter how many years it may take. We have to educate ourselves, and also educate the white community to make them respect us. (Patten, 1938)

Upon arrival in 1788, British settlers declared Indigenous people to be outcasts, a status that has become entrenched in the fabric of Australian society (Rowley, 1972b). The above extract from the May 1938 Australian Abo Call mobilised Indigenous people all over Australia to organise themselves and work in solidarity for the right to be counted, at the time, as citizens of the country and given equal rights to education and opportunity. This was in response to unfair treatment and conditions as a result of prejudices and prejudgements of Indigenous people in Australia. Thankfully, there has been a substantial amount of work done since that 15

time because of prominent Indigenous leaders such as J.T. Patten, who wrote and edited the above article, motivated by his aspirations to make a positive difference in the lives of Indigenous people in Australia. This particular extract exemplifies how Indigenous people had been used as slaves for 150 years: ‘Missionaries of all kinds have used the sufferings of our people as a bait for "cadging" from the public’. Perhaps this is where the selling of Indigenous disadvantage originated. He talks about ‘entering a political fight for the uplifting of our people’ and that Indigenous people want ‘justice’ and ‘respect’, not ‘charity’ (1938).

J.T. Patten and his associates would be pleased that their actions led to the 1967 referendum to change the Australian Constitution, which openly discriminated against Indigenous people, and received an overwhelming yes response. This referendum resulted in the largest of any constitutional changes in Australia’s history (Attwood & Markus, 2007). Now Indigenous people are counted as citizens (Bennett, 1985), and the majority of Indigenous children have access to Western education (Price & Price, 2015). However, Indigenous people have yet to find a place in contemporary Australian society.

It is particularly fitting this thesis begins with a quote from Jack Patten (1938). Jack was born on the banks of the Murray River in Moama and educated in the Cummeragunja Mission, an Indigenous reserve along the Murray River on the traditional lands of the Yorta Yorta Nations (Horner, 1988). He is one of the many Yorta Yorta leaders known nationally for their advocacy on Indigenous rights. At his father's request, Jack played an important role in protesting against the poor living conditions and lack of rations for basic necessities such as food and blankets that residents living on Cummeragunja endured. By initiating what is known widely today as the Cummeragunja Walk-Off (Davis, 2010), many of the families left the mission and settled on the flats between the townships of Mooroopna and Shepparton two hours north of Melbourne along the Goulburn River (J. Atkinson, 2002).

This thesis is about the Yorta Yorta approach to repositioning the social, cultural and economic value of Indigenous people and their quest for prosperity on country. Although the language has changed since Patten’s 1938 Abo Call, the objective of achieving equity remains, and the concept of repositioning value follows in the footsteps of Patten and his associates. These past leaders advocated for social change for a different approach that ‘would see the

uprise of Aboriginal people’ and gaining respect from within broader society. This thesis follows the Yorta Yorta people and their successive Indigenous leaders who have kept this conversation, and indeed objective, alive.

This introduction chapter provides an overview of the research project, identifies the problem the research aimed to address, the scope and limitations of the research before providing a summary of the case study site and finishing with an outline of the thesis.

THE CONSEQUENCES OF HISTORY Since invasion, colonisation, and the impacts of government policies to address Indigenous people’s position in Australia, Indigenous people have been entangled in a deficit discourse (Walter, 2018) where their value is regularly depreciated as a prelude to seeking funding. Eckermann (2010, p. 44) illustrates this point through the example of education:

Since colonisation, Aboriginal people have been un- or under educated by government policies which deemed them capable only of rudimentary education. Note the interplays of scientific racism (Aboriginal people are less intelligent) with institutional racism (Aboriginal people were excluded from government schools and educated in segregated schools taught by untrained teachers). Since colonisation Aboriginal people have been considered fit only for menial work. Again note the interplay of scientific racism (Aboriginal people are suited to be servants) with institutional racism (Aboriginal people were forced, by law, to work as indentured labour). Since colonisation Aboriginal people have been made dependent on the state. Note the interplay of scientific racism (Aboriginal people need to be protected because they are unable to care for themselves or until they measure up to our civilisation). Since colonisation, there has been little or no recognition of Aboriginal worth. What do these patterns mean for Aboriginal people’s place in Australian society? They mean that Aboriginal people have predominately been allocated to the lowest stratum in Australian society. The disparities and inequities between Indigenous and non-Indigenous people do not start with Indigenous people. They begin with non-Indigenous people’s perception of the value and contribution of Indigenous people and what different cultures have to offer the world. The impacts of Indigenous disadvantage are prevalent in current social, cultural and economic contexts. There will be no significant change in the position of Indigenous people in broader Australian society until the underlying causes of disadvantage are addressed.

THE YORTA YORTA PEOPLE In Australia, the Yorta Yorta people believe they are leading the way nationally by providing innovative alternative approaches to supporting Indigenous community development and self-determination. Central to these initiatives has been a movement away from interventionist approaches and towards investment approaches that will benefit the entire community. The benefit of the approach proposed by the Yorta Yorta includes its capacity to facilitate Indigenous people’s participation in the broader economic and social life of a region in a way that affirms culture.

The Yorta Yorta approach to repositioning value is about finding a way to disentangle Indigenous people from welfare dependant structures and crisis intervention or, as Patten (1938) called it, the ‘charity’ approaches that continue the cycle of disadvantage to a human rights approach. Indigenous communities need to be empowered to both define what is important and lead the process to monitor and evaluate progress (Poelina, 2020). This holds true for communities pursuing self-determination and regional self-governance and for relationships between Indigenous communities and local, state and Commonwealth governments. This, in turn, requires rethinking traditional government metrics and seeking to create innovative ways of investing in the Indigenous community.

This research engaged with Indigenous and non-Indigenous leaders who have been investing in change on Yorta Yorta country within the local government boundaries the community describes as the Goulburn Murray region and explores what this community perceives as the key successes and challenges in pursuing parity. Indigenous perspectives are central to the advancement of Indigenous people within broader society. This research seeks to describe one regional Indigenous community’s ongoing attempt to reimagine and redefine their presence in the Goulburn Murray region of Victoria.

Repositioning value is a concept. The article from Jack Patten (1938) tells us it is not a new concept and that it is something that Indigenous people have been working at for a long time. It has been more than 80 years since Patten’s article (1938), yet we are still trying to work out

how to win the respect and support of the white community by showing how unfairly we have been treated. Yorta Yorta Elder and leader Paul Briggs explains:

Aboriginal history in all its sophistication and complexity is still not respectfully recognised nor taught in schools. It is a matter of urgency to address our great national deficit, namely the lack of understanding and poor access to information and knowledge, which would combat generational stereotyping of Indigenous people. (Paul Briggs, 2012). A part of the problem is that the economic base for many Indigenous communities relies on selling disadvantage, which continues to generate deficit narratives that depict Indigenous people as the problem. This is congruent with Patten (1938) argument that ‘We must win the respect and support of the white community by showing how unfairly we have been treated in the past under the stupid Aboriginal laws imposed on us more than fifty years ago, and never brought up-to-date’. This research engaged with one regional Indigenous community’s mission to continue the dialogue of their successive Indigenous leaders to achieve the respect and support of the White community.

In the Goulburn Murray region, the Indigenous community continues to advocate for the mechanisms that empower Indigenous people living on Yorta Yorta country to set their own aspirations and priorities. Their approach centres on a rights-based approach that acknowledges Indigenous people have a right to a quality of life consistent with that of pre- colonisation. Recognising that to achieve the desired outcome, they need the entire region to be invested in Indigenous people's economic growth and prosperity, not just the indigenous community alone. The consequential positive gains for Indigenous people in activating their plan in the region include cultural affirmation, strengthening identity, and socio-economic outcomes that can easily translate into broad gains for the entire region.

This thesis focuses on the Yorta Yorta Indigenous community’s response to a new approach to Indigenous advancement. It examines what their successes and their challenges have been over a 20-year journey. This research provides a detailed analysis of the way the Indigenous community has gone about challenging and changing the current social and political structures that continue to generate a deficit narrative. A deliberate effort has been made to focus on the community’s strengths and capabilities rather than its deficits. The community

has looked for ways to address the underlying external factors that ultimately impact their position within the broader society and negatively impact Indigenous people in the region.

This introductory chapter provides an overview and context of the research and the problem the research questions were developed to address. The research aims, scope, design, limitations, and significance, are discussed, and an overview of the thesis structure is provided.

CONTEXT This research was developed on the premise that Indigenous people’s position in Australian society is intrinsically linked to their past social, cultural and economic status. As Eckermann (2010, p. 3) contends:

… we are all products of the past which overtly and covertly influences perceptions and interpretations of the societies in which we live. Consequently, it is impossible to understand the current context in Australian society without being aware of its history since invasion. The histories of Indigenous and non-Indigenous interactions in Australia have influenced and continue to affect all Australians. The colonial values of white Australia have had profoundly detrimental implications for the spiritual, social, cultural, and economic position of Indigenous people and have skewed the concepts of equality, sovereignty, truth and justice (Hocking & Whiteford, 1995; Moreton-Robinson, 2005).

This research considered how one regional Indigenous community went about changing Western beliefs that lack the respect and appreciation of the value of Indigenous people. The study investigated how the community is challenging the racially motivated, historical and generational behaviours of colonisers that are embedded in the fabric of the country to reposition the value of Indigenous people in the region. This is important for the progress of Indigenous peoples in the country and an emerging conversation. Nationally, the work on constitutional recognition, including the voice on The Uluru Statement from the Heart, addresses symptoms of the challenges in front of us. This thesis addresses the work of the Yorta Yorta peoples and provides a regional perspective that outlines one Indigenous community approach to changing the conversation.

PROBLEM STATEMENT There are many fundamental problems with Indigenous people’s position within broader Australian society. Most of them begin with the arrival of the First Fleet (Watson, 2014). Since the invasion and dispossession of traditional lands, the Yorta Yorta have continued to fight to reach agreement on a defined future that recognises and respects sovereignty. This sovereignty was never formally ceded, therefore, the drive for self-determination continues.

Indigenous communities lack the support of an appropriate governance body that addresses a full range of social, cultural, and economic matters. Consequently, all levels of government have created a complex system that seeks to ‘deal with’ what is often referred to as the ‘Aboriginal problem’ (Anderson, Baum, & Bentley, 2007). The government’s approach and practice in dealing with the problem have created and continue to contribute to an interventionist mindset that characterises the relationship between Indigenous people and the wider community. The region as a whole lacks accountability in its sense of ownership and responsibility toward addressing the disparities between Indigenous and non-Indigenous people (Paul Briggs, 2018a).

Many government policies and acts of parliament aimed at addressing the Indigenous problem may have been well-meaning. However, most have been problematic. Government- instigated approaches to address the Indigenous crisis have failed to acknowledge the impact of government intervention in disempowering Indigenous people (Altman, 2013; Eckermann, 2010). The approaches have cemented a deficit-based narrative around Indigenous people by requiring Indigenous communities to sell their disadvantage to secure government funding, thereby reinforcing the perception of Indigenous people as the problem; this, in turn, further disempowers and devalues their position within the broader society.

A more strategic approach that focuses on addressing the cause rather than continuing to narrow in on the symptoms of disparity between Indigenous and non-Indigenous people is needed. Governments continue to focus attention on intervention-based policies, implicit in the current targets focused on health and life expectancy outcomes, rather than promoting investment into critical programs, activities, and infrastructure that culturally affirm and sustain the identity of Indigenous people.

Historically, and in contemporary Australian politics, Indigenous people are commonly identified as both the ‘problem’ and the agents who need to fix it. However, part of the responsibility is on mainstream, not just Indigenous people, to restore the economic, social, cultural, emotional, and spiritual wellbeing of Indigenous people. Professor Tom Calma AO urged Australian governments to commit to achieving equality in health and life expectancy within 25 years (Social Justice Report 2005). Since 2007, the Australian Government has been committed to ‘closing the gap’ on Indigenous and non-Indigenous disadvantage (Closing the Gap: Prime Minister's Report, 2018). The governments commonly centralised collection and analysis of data, as we see with policies such as Closing the Gap, is not reflective of the information required to make good regional decisions about building the social wellbeing, wealth, and prosperity of Indigenous people. Indigenous definitions of social wellbeing, wealth, and prosperity often differ from commonly accepted Western concepts (Algabonyah Score Card 2017; Anderson et al., 2007). The colonisation of data means that it is difficult to attribute value to the collective happiness, active participation, and pride in culture and identity as a measure of prosperity, as an example (Algabonyah Score Card 2017). By collecting data that neither empowers government nor Indigenous people to make good decisions, the case for empowerment and self-determination is undermined, and Indigenous cultural sustainability, aspiration, and expression is further challenged.

A significant challenge for Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians is to shift the political focus and dominant thinking on the place of Indigenous people in the broader Australian society from a ‘blame the victim narrative’ (Hollinsworth, 1996, p. 120) to acknowledge the many external factors impacting on Indigenous people’s ability to participate and thrive within mainstream society (Eckermann, 2010). These factors include invasion; discrimination; oppression; marginalisation; exclusion from education, employment and housing, and racism. Indigenous peoples face these issues daily as a result of non-Indigenous people’s perception of Indigenous people in Australia.

From an Indigenous perspective, the government policies for Indigenous advancement are still about assimilation (Paul Briggs, 2018a). Unless there is an education process about the rights of Indigenous people and the sustainability of culture and cultural differences, the

consensus by the mainstream is still that Indigenous people need to be made to fit in. The apathy of mainstream Australia towards Indigenous issues was demonstrated in the Australian Government’s rejection of the Uluru Statement of the Heart (Morris, 2018). Indigenous people have fought for constitutional recognition since William Cooper’s letter to King George VI in 1937 (Final Report of the Referendum Council, 2017). In initiatives such as the national referendum on constitutional change, the rest of Australia does not feel obligated to have an opinion about it unless it affects them directly. Broader Australians’ ignorance, ambivalence, and aloofness to Indigenous people’s existence and right and need for self-determination is a real leadership challenge and a problem for progressing that important conversation.

Indigenous people operate in an uncertain political environment that has lacked an overarching vision and coordination in key areas, including government policy towards Indigenous advancement. Lack of consistent engagement of Indigenous people has resulted in a legacy of poor government decision-making that has adverse effects for Indigenous people. The Australian Government has been largely unsuccessful in its approach to the country's original inhabitants, both initially and in every effort to address disadvantage since invasion (Anderson et al., 2007). There are many flaws in successive governments’ approaches to addressing disadvantage. Government interventions are based on government priorities and outcomes frameworks. These interventions treat symptoms and do not adequately address the root causes of disadvantage and intergenerational trauma since colonisation and the impact on culture, language, and social policy that significantly disrupted practices of knowledge transfer and traditional family structures (Anderson et al., 2007; J. Atkinson, 2002; Eckermann, 2010). Indigenous definitions of health, physical and social wellbeing, wealth, and prosperity differ from commonly accepted Western concepts.

Indigenous communities have little control over government funding within their communities or power to set priorities that will deal with the day-to-day crises as well as address the underlying long-term fundamental causes of these crises (Anderson, 2001). There has been little change, particularly in terms of the position of Indigenous people within broader society, despite the application of many government-directed approaches and

financial contributions. The approaches have been top-down and predominately non- Indigenous led. Therefore, an alternative approach is needed.

Why is it a Problem Indigenous people in the Goulburn Murray region feel devalued within an overwhelmingly deficit-focused environment and do not feel a sense of belonging or ownership of the region (Empowered Communities: Empowered People Design Report, 2015). There is a critical need for governments and communities to consider a different approach to the long-term disadvantage experienced by Indigenous Australians. Currently, there is a lack of appropriate avenues for Indigenous leaders and organisations to participate in decision making on matters that affect their lives (Anderson et al., 2007). There is also a lack of transparent, accountable, and culturally appropriate decision making and governance structures that are both created by and representative of Indigenous people in the region. This means there is no place to address the ongoing ‘invisibility’ of the culture of Indigenous people, and specifically the Yorta Yorta, on their own land (Goulburn Murray Empowered Communities Report 2017).

Indigenous people continue to be stigmatised and excluded from regional decision making around development and investment due to deficit language prevailing in government-led Indigenous policy (e.g., Commonwealth Government’s Closing the Gap agenda). The deficit language is characteristic of historically weak policy that legitimises poor regional behaviour in aversion to rights-based, inclusive models of investment and governance. In addition to driving negative stereotypes, the use of deficit language in policy has contributed to an environment where decision making is undertaken on behalf of Indigenous people rather than supporting and encouraging Indigenous communities to self-determine their futures based on what they know to be their needs and aspirations. As a consequence of the negative sentiment and language in policy, decision-making, and investment, Indigenous people in the Goulburn Murray region are being forced into ‘survivalist’ behaviour, which distracts the prioritisation from what is important to Indigenous people, including cultural sustainability, identity and expression.

Indigenous organisations in the region now find themselves in a situation where they are required to divert resources to deliver on the day-to-day crises rather than pushing for

fundamental change that will empower, preserve, and value Indigenous language, culture, and identity in the region. Indigenous people are experts on matters that affect past, present, and future wellbeing. Therefore, their important perspectives and experiences need to inform any initiative that aims to achieve parity and prosperity.

SCOPE Much of the contemporary literature pertaining to Indigenous Australians continue to emphasise their poor outcomes in comparison to non-Indigenous people across a number of indicators that focus on what Walter (2018, p. 80) refers to as ‘the five ‘Ds’ of data on Indigenous people: disparity, deprivation, disadvantage, dysfunction and difference’. An emerging body of research focused on challenging the deficit discourse within colonised/colonising countries and investing in Indigenous communities' social, cultural, and economic value (Langton, 2013; Lewis, 2011; Moreton-Robinson, 2013; Walter, 2018). However, to date, the scope of this work has been limited to a general call for action, is nationally based, and critiques at the policy level. There is a lack of literature from a regional perspective that provides community-based examples of alternative approaches to progress Indigenous advancement at a local level. Yet, there is a growing interest in regional approaches that work ‘from the bottom up’.

There is also limited research that focuses on Indigenous empowerment from a regional perspective, even though the needs of each Indigenous community are different. The Yorta Yorta Nation is one of eight regions funded under the Federal Government’s Empowered Communities Program, which aims to ‘empower communities by empowering people to have greater influence and control over decisions that impact on their lives’ (Empowered Communities: Empowered People Design Report, 2015). The region aims to promote self- governance and proposes the establishment of a regional self-governance structure: ‘Empowered Communities is fundamentally about facilitating place-based development. A critical component of this focus is a regional place-based approach covering the eight regions and including provisions for other regions to opt-in down the track’ (Empowered Communities: Empowered People Design Report, 2015). Empowered Communities advocates for an approach to address Indigenous communities’ needs at a localised level, in line with each

community’s own priorities and needs, and represents a bottom-up rather than top-down approach to empowering individuals, families, and communities to create better lives for themselves (Goulburn Murray Empowered Communities Report 2017).

The Concepts of ‘Repositioning Value’ and ‘Prosperity on Country’ The concept of repositioning value is talking to the language of prosperity and productivity and challenging leaders to think differently. This is a qualitative project drawing on the experiences and knowledge of Indigenous community leaders and government investing in the Goulburn Murray region of Victoria, which follows the traditional boundaries of the Yorta Yorta Nations. The research examined the region’s Indigenous Empowerment Strategy, which had two focuses: to close the gap on Indigenous people's social and economic disadvantage and to ensure cultural recognition and celebration of Indigenous culture is continuously maintained (Empowered Communities: Empowered People Design Report, 2015).

The concept of repositioning value is not new; although the language has changed, Indigenous people have been trying to find and sustain a place in Australia since colonisation. The term ‘repositioning value’ is a proposition put forward by Yorta Yorta leader Paul Briggs OAM. The concept has been progressed with the Empowered Communities framework first proposed by Noel Pearson in 2014.

Since the early 2000s, I have been part of policy development and conceptual thinking on the need for reform of the Australian welfare system, and the need for those trapped in passive welfare to shift from passivity to responsibility. I have been working collaboratively with the other Empowered Communities regions for the last 18 months on articulating the architecture that will enable communities to decide their own futures—to ensure that culture, language and tradition have their place within socially and economically developed communities and that each community can have its say in the direction it takes. (Empowered Communities: Empowered People Design Report, 2015, p. 4) In this context, ‘empowered communities’ or ‘empowerment’ recognise that Indigenous people face daily structural inequalities that have not been addressed from the point of invasion and dispossession and that the place of Indigenous people and culture has not yet been settled. Government policies reflect the rationale of genocide, segregation practices, and then assimilation practices that were again about the disrespect that people had or the 26

lack of knowledge or understanding of the sophistication of Indigenous knowledge (De Hoog, Sherwood, & Martin, 1979; Eckermann, 2010; Gale, 2006; W. Ryan, 1976; Tatz, 1979).

The current policy approach by government is not centred on a rights-based model; rather, it is an example of policy being made for and not with or by Indigenous people (Anderson, 2001). This has contributed to crisis intervention-focused policies and programs that contribute to negative stereotypes driven by Western concepts of wellbeing. The policies perpetuate survivalist behaviour within Indigenous communities and distract from affirming culture and building collective aspiration and community confidence. The structure and institutions place the onus to improve on Indigenous communities themselves, rather than creating an obligation for mainstream society to invest in the development of prosperous Indigenous communities that are culturally strong and valued by the dominant culture.

While there is still a need for some intervention programs, these must be offset by concurrent investment into the development of cultural awareness within mainstream Australia. The investment should go to the core of the underlying factors that have contributed to the generational devaluing of Indigenous people in the first instance. This includes addressing bureaucratic and institutional racism to reaffirm the perceived value of Indigenous knowledge in mainstream society. Fundamental to the concept of repositioning value is understanding the value that Indigenous people bring to broader Australian society through a richness of shared culture (Anderson, 2001; Anderson et al., 2007). At its core, repositioning value is about unlocking the social, cultural, and economic benefits for the broader community by establishing a level of empowerment within local Indigenous communities equal to that experienced by the rest of the community.

The workaround prosperity on country and repositioning value on Yorta Yorta country is not in isolation. It is a part of a state and national conversation and an international movement by First Nations peoples. Despite the dispossession, oppression and denial of an Indigenous voice in policymaking, the Yorta Yorta people still have a strong presence in the region. They have found a way to organise and represent themselves locally, within the state, and contribute to the national conversation.

Scope and Limitations The purpose of the research was to capture the ongoing work of the Goulburn Murray Indigenous community to reposition the social, cultural, and economic value of Indigenous peoples in the region. The Goulburn Murray region sits on the traditional lands of the Yorta Yorta Nation.

The Kaiela Institute has provided a platform for collaboration between Indigenous and non- Indigenous people to take a more strategic approach to Indigenous affairs in the region ("Kaiela Institute Independent Centre for Leadership and Innovation ", 2018). The Kaiela Institute believes they have a formula for impacting long term and sustainable change from the ground up, where decisions that affect the lives of Indigenous people can and will be made at the closest possible place to those who it will affect ("Kaiela Institute Independent Centre for Leadership and Innovation ", 2018).

It is important to note that this research is reflective of those who participated in the study and not representative of the entire Indigenous community. Data collection was undertaken during a period in which the community was experiencing fragmentation in leadership. The community’s leading Aboriginal Community Controlled Health Organisation (ACCHO), the Rumbalara Aboriginal Cooperation, was under administration after operating with unstable leadership for two years. The current leadership within the community was experiencing challenges in terms of a collective vision for moving forward.

The instability the community was experiencing at this time had some impact on the data collection process and the ability to access each of the identified community organisations and their respective leadership during the collection period. It takes time to build relationships and trust, particularly when working in Indigenous communities, even as an Indigenous researcher and community member. In addition, time is constricted for postgraduate research, with only a short period available to undertake data collection, and there were several significant leadership changes in that period. The fragmentation and change in leadership in the community impacted the collection of data for this project; representatives from two of the eight prominent Indigenous organisations in the region did not engage or

declined to participate. Therefore, their important perspectives are not represented in this study.

There are inherent challenges when it comes to who speaks for whom in the Indigenous community. It is important to reiterate the research should not be construed on behalf of the whole Indigenous community or the Yorta Yorta Nations as a collective. The study is from the perspectives of the research participants. The research purposely engaged with key leaders who had direct involvement in the region and the work of the Kaiela Institute and their regional self-governance and prosperity plan. Some of the participants represent the community, some represent organisations, and some are personal views or those of their specific interest groups within the community.

The term community is used to describe the Indigenous community living on Yorta Yorta country. The work of the Kaiela Institute is for and on behalf of the community. The Kaiela Institute has undertaken significant community consultations on their proposals since 2008; therefore, the research refers to the community, to the region, and the Yorta Yorta Nations. It is important to note there are pockets of the Indigenous community that are not supportive of the work of the Kaiela Institute’s Prosperity Plan, and they did not participate in this research project.

Case Study Site The Goulburn-Murray regional townships are urbanised environments where the historical and contemporary experience of dispossession and prejudice pose a challenge to the successful integration of Indigenous people into the broader community. (Empowered Communities: Empowered People Design Report, 2015) The population of the Indigenous community in the Goulburn Murray region is estimated to be more than 6,000 people, the largest Indigenous population in Victoria outside metropolitan Melbourne (Bourke & Geldens, 2007, p. 609). The Goulburn Murray is two hours north of Melbourne, Victoria, on the east coast of Australia, where the impact of colonisation resulted in a significant reduction in the Indigenous populations. Today, Indigenous people equate to only 5% of the population, and Indigenous people are classed very much as a minority group (Alford, 2002; Algabonyah Score Card 2017).

This research engaged participants from the main ACCO’s leadership and government employees who have been investing in the region’s Prosperity Plan. The research was developed to encourage a diverse range of perspectives from key contributors in the region on the local Indigenous community and their perceived position within the broader community. This provided in-depth and extensive data from most of the main contributors in the region. Indigenous organisations in the region have made significant progress in many areas; however, significant challenges remain on some of the most complex and intergenerational issues (Goulburn Murray Empowered Communities Report 2017).

Community Driven Approach Describing an Indigenous community is complex. Ted Wilkes, an Indigenous academic, defines the Indigenous community as:

The Aboriginal community can be interpreted as geographical, social and political. It places Aboriginal people as part of, but different from the rest of Australian society. Aboriginal people identify themselves with the idea of being part of ‘community’; it gives us a sense of unity and strength. Sometimes issues-based groups are perceived as a community—but that is not the case, it is a re-configuration of some parts of the existing community. I think of all of us together, as a political and cultural group. It includes everyone, no matter what ‘faction’ or local group they are affiliated with, or which part of our diversity they live in. It is [also] a national concept. (P. Dudgeon, Mallard, J., Oxenham, D., & Fielder, J., 2002, p. 248). The word community is reflective of a group of people who share commonalities and often work together, especially in terms of accessing and sharing community resources and services. Limerick (2009) proposes that what is often referred to as ‘Indigenous communities’ is a relatively new socially constructed concept that is a result of former government policy of segregation (1890s–1950s) that saw Indigenous groups rounded up and placed onto missions and reserves. This research refers to the Indigenous peoples living in the Goulburn Murray region. The Kaiela Institute advocates for social change at a local, state and national level on behalf of the Indigenous community and their work often refers to the Indigenous community, so this project has adopted their use of the term Indigenous community. Although the phrase indicates collective interests, vision, and a shared identity, the use of the

term Indigenous community does not imply that all community members share the same views.

There is a desire amongst Indigenous people in the Goulburn Murray region to move away from negative framing and deficit discourses towards a more sophisticated approach that speaks to the language of strength and empowerment, to redefine Indigenous identity and place in contemporary Australian society (Goulburn Murray Empowered Communities Report 2017). Despite the failures of successive governments to adopt empowerment-based approaches, there are many Australians, Indigenous and non-Indigenous, who share a vision for a more inclusive, honest and equal account of Australia’s history, and hope for a better future for all (Peredo, Anderson, Galbraith, Honig, & Dana, 2004).

The focus has been on remedying the symptoms rather than addressing the causes of comparative disadvantage experienced by Indigenous people. Instead, government at all levels should look to making structural reforms that affirm (or even celebrate) the culture and identity of Indigenous peoples. This would have the flow-on impact of building aspiration and confidence and improving socio-economic engagement while providing a strong foundational identity. There is a critical need to change the mindset and invest in regional development, capability building within community, and economic prosperity. This approach would include wellbeing and self-determination rather than merely responding with services and responding to crises.

The alternative approach being put forward by the Yorta Yorta Nation is a regional community response that puts the Indigenous community at the centre of decision-making, placing the decision-making process as close as possible to those who are affected by it. The approach seeks to disrupt the current operations and offers an alternative strategy to reposition the social, cultural, and economic value of Indigenous people in the Goulburn Murray region of Victoria.

Key leaders and contributors to the region’s prosperity plan were identified with assistance from the Kaiela Institute. Potential participants were invited to participate in an interview to gauge their thoughts about the regional plan, what they think about the community, the position of Indigenous people on Yorta Yorta country, their vision or aspirations for the future,

and how they feel that could be achieved. The project was derived from one of the local ACCHOs and overseen by a Project Management group and the Community Cabinet.

OUTLINE OF THE STUDY The questions guiding the research were:

• What attributes are the Yorta Yorta people investing in, in terms of actions, processes, infrastructure, principles, and practices to reposition the value of Indigenous people living on country? • What are the contextual, historical and political factors that have influenced the successes and failures of Indigenous people in the Goulburn Murray region of Victoria in their quest for prosperity on country?

These two research questions are explored through the perspectives of community and government leaders working on strategies of self-determination and empowerment for Indigenous people living in the Goulburn Murray region of Victoria. The research questions were aligned with the three strategic areas identified by the Kaiela Institute as key focus areas towards the region's prosperity plan. Including regional community governance, relationship with government and transforming the use of deficit language to one of prosperity and investment. The region's prosperity plan is something the community has been working on for generations; therefore, the context and history of the political advocacy of Yorta Yorta people are explored. The Yorta Yorta community, their legacy of leadership, the challenges and strengths are presented before the region’s prosperity plan and vision for the future as identified by leaders in the community.

SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY When trying to understand the position of disadvantaged people within the broader society, it is clear that quite often, policies and interventions have been focused on changing the people and their ‘lifestyles’ rather than the structures or systems in which they live (Eckermann, 2010; Spindler, 1994). Although there have been some improvements over the past four decades, the current Closing the Gap campaign (Closing the Gap: Prime Minister's

Report, 2018) indicates those improvements have not led to substantial change, and significant challenges remain for some of the most complex issues (Goulburn Murray Empowered Communities Report 2017). In most cases, successive government interventions to address Indigenous disadvantage have been unsuccessful (Anderson et al., 2007).

This research outlines one regional Indigenous community’s approach to tackling Indigenous disadvantage. This approach considers all factors that have impacted on or impeded the community’s ability to move forward. The research identified what the strengths and challenges have been and what the community has learned from their experiences. The case study illustrates how a regional community can take small steps that lead to substantial developments. It exemplifies self-determination, empowerment, and how a community is taking control by looking beyond the day-to-day crises towards the future while advocating for social justice based on human rights investment to move away from the deficit discourse that continues the cycle of disadvantage. The research focused on three areas in the region’s prosperity plan. The first is the social and cultural status of Indigenous people, looking at the historical relationship, the impact of social class and stratification on the attitudes and beliefs of both Indigenous and non-Indigenous peoples in the region. The second is the Yorta Yorta Algabonyah (Indigenous Community on Yorta Yorta Country), their successive leadership and identified strengths and challenges. The impact of the Yorta Yorta Native title outcome before finally investigating the region’s emergent model for regional self-governance, what the community has learned from their experiences and what they believe needs to be done in the future to move forward.

One of the most persistent problems in contemporary Australian society is how to address Indigenous disadvantage. This research provides one regional Indigenous community’s response to addressing this problem. Further, because the model holds the region to account, the regional governance model and regional approach examined in this thesis can be used to influence policy at the local, state and federal level and thereby contributes to much-needed policy development debates.

The strengths of this research include how it was derived from the Yorta Yorta Indigenous community and the consideration of a wide breadth of community-identified issues on the

social, cultural, economic, and political value of Indigenous peoples living on Yorta Yorta country. Collecting Indigenous-specific data on matters that are identified priorities of the Indigenous community provides the opportunity to have input in regional policy direction that addresses racism.

This thesis captures important work being undertaken at a regional level for Indigenous people to be better integrated and accepted in broader society. It follows the Yorta Yorta journey to promoting social inclusion and acceptance into a society that has traditionally excluded them. It demonstrates how a regional community goes about addressing structural racism and unconscious bias by advocating for change through public policy to shift the narrative for Indigenous people from one of ‘disadvantage’ to one of ‘empowerment’, with a specific focus on celebrating success as a shared success for the whole community.

INSIDER RESEARCHER AND REFLEXIVITY It is important to recognise and acknowledge the influence of the researcher’s theoretical and cultural standpoint and potential for bias by addressing their position in the research. This is necessary to ensure that research is undertaken in a reflective and reflexive process in both the data collection and the analysis phases (Greene, 2014). I am an Indigenous woman inherently connected to this country. I have a strong affiliation with the Indigenous community, having been a part of the Indigenous community and personally investing and contributing to the community through various organisations, working on empowerment strategies for more than twenty years. I have a personal investment in the research area, for this is the region where I live and raise my family. As an insider researcher, it is somewhat difficult not to impart my experience and knowledge and remain unbiased in producing, collecting, and analysing the data. This can essentially be viewed as a strength or a weakness (D. Foley, 2003; Moreton-Robinson, 2013). All researchers will impart their knowledge, experience, and views into their research, and for this reason, it is often argued that no research is fundamentally objective.

Although not a descendant of the Yorta Yorta peoples. I worked and volunteered in the Indigenous community, where the research was undertaken for many years. Therefore, I have well-established relationships and a deep understanding and prior knowledge of the 34

community and the specific landscape for this research. By stating my position as an insider researcher and recognising and acknowledging the potential for bias (Unluer, 2012), formal meetings occurred regularly with one of my supervisors to debrief and reflect on the interviews and to discuss any issues that may affect the analysis or interpretation of the interview data (Greene, 2014). In addition, regular updates were provided to the project management group at the Kaiela Institute, particularly after the data collection and during the analysis phase, to talk about the outcomes of the interviews and to test the interpretation of the findings to ensure the narrative was in line with the expectations of the community. People’s own experiences, interests, curiosities, and history is what motivates research; values and beliefs will shape how the world is viewed and interpreted. ‘In qualitative research, researchers must attempt to suspend, or set aside, their perspectives and taken for granted views of the world.’ (Greene, 2014). They suggest that the research approach is to view things as if they are happening for the first time. According to Greene (2014, p. 1):

Insider research is that which is conducted within a social group, organisation or culture of which the researcher is also a member. While insider research has its roots in ethnographic field research in the disciplines of anthropology and sociology, it has relevance across many disciplines, and should be of particular interest to those concerned with the methodological and ethical consequences of conducting research.

It was necessary to adopt an approach that would enable the researcher to determine how the participants perceive and understand the past and current practices of that community in terms of the vision and aspirations towards parity and prosperity on country. Because the project was undertaken with one of the Indigenous organisations in the region, I was afforded access to the community, community leaders, and government working on the region’s empowerment plan. In return, I was stationed at the Kaiela Institute for the duration of the candidature. There was an implicit understanding that by being granted unrestricted access to the organisation and being privy to their innovative work, I would contribute by giving back to the community from which I was taking information. This is both a reward and a challenge for Indigenous researchers undertaking research in the Indigenous community in which we live and are a part of. The expectation of reciprocity can, at times, be challenging to manage. However, there were opportunities that would not have otherwise been afforded to actively

contribute to community leadership and be a party to the complex operating systems behind the scenes in Indigenous community development.

During the three-year project, I contributed to establishing the Kaiela Institute’s Algabonyah Data Unit and developing the community’s first Annual Score Card. I was an executive member of the Rumbalara Football Netball Club board as club secretary and a member of the interim Algabonyah Community Cabinet. I was on working groups for the establishment of the Munarra Centre for Regional Excellence and participated in and presented at several community workshops, including Indigenous Data Sovereignty and the National Closing the Gap workshops in Canberra on behalf of the Kaiela Institute to share their vision and experiences. By doing this and investing in the community, I was given opportunities to participate in important meetings with all levels of government and community. I was able to see firsthand the aspiration and vision, the process and the enablers, and the challenges associated with realising this vision.

THESIS OUTLINE This thesis is organised across eight chapters. This chapter has provided the context of the study and an overview of the current positioning of Indigenous people in Australia, highlighting the context and key points of concern. It included a brief background to the historical processes that have led to the current positioning of Indigenous people in Australia and outlined the research question, aims, scope, objectives and areas of focus.

Chapter Two provides a more in-depth background, investigating the consequential position of Indigenous peoples in Australia from a historical perspective and then provides an overview of the Goulburn Murray community. The chapter introduces the aspiration, vision, and planning the community has been working on to reposition the perceived value of Indigenous people in the region. The Yorta Yorta Nations of the Goulburn Murray of Victoria, as the case study for this research project, are discussed in greater detail, including the three components of the region’s proposal: empowered communities, the Algabonyah Community Cabinet, and the Algabonyah Data Unit.

Chapter Three presents a literature review that identifies the current position of Indigenous people in Australia and where that position originated. The review then focuses on research 36

that challenges the negative stereotypes and changes the conversations from deficit to investment, on building capabilities, social inclusion, self-determination and repositioning value.

Chapter Four describes the research methodology used, including the theoretical framework adopted in the study and the specific methods of data collection and analysis used.

Chapters Five, Six and Seven present the findings from the data collection and analysis to answer the research questions. The research focused on three key areas concerned with repositioning the social, cultural, and economic value of Indigenous people in the region: social and cultural status, Indigenous community governance, and language. In the analysis, the historical, contextual, and cultural factors were considered in assessing the position of Indigenous people in broader society. Together, these three chapters investigate a regional perspective on prosperity on country and reimagining and repositioning the social, cultural, economic, and political value of Indigenous peoples.

Chapter Eight synthesises the outcomes of this research project by presenting the Goulburn Murray region’s model to reposition the social, cultural, and economic value of Indigenous people in this region.

CHAPTER TWO – BACKGROUND

OVERVIEW The first chapter introduced the research project, the context, the ‘problem’ addressed, the aim, the scope and the significance of this research. This background chapter provides an overview of the demographics of the research area, elaborates on the context of the research, the location and time, and introduces the history of the position of Indigenous people in the Goulburn Murray region, including the two missions on Yorta Yorta country. It describes the contextual, historical, social, cultural and economic implications of Australia’s colonial history at a regional, state, and national level. The impact of colonisation, the political challenges and the implications of these challenges today are outlined before introducing the case study site and a summary of the Yorta Yorta Nations’ approach to repositioning the value of Indigenous peoples in their region.

The purpose of this chapter is to provide a holistic view of the Yorta Yorta Nations and a deeper understanding of the region, the Indigenous community, its history, infrastructure, and current governance structures. It will introduce the unique characteristics of this Indigenous community, including the demographics, the legacy of its leaders, and the envisioning strategies used to find a different approach to Indigenous self-determination and prosperity. This community was chosen because of its innovative and alternative approach to tackling Indigenous disadvantage, which has been recognised at national and state levels.

HISTORICAL CONTEXT OF THE POSITION OF INDIGENOUS PEOPLES In 1788, Indigenous people in Australia had a level of wellbeing, a quality of life equal to any culture on the planet. Captain Cook commented that ‘they live in tranquillity which is not disturbed by the inequality of condition’ (Eckermann, 2010, p. 7). With complex social structures and lores, the first peoples were at peace and enjoying a meaningful life (Burton, Westen, & Kowalski, 2009; Germov & Poole, 2014). That wellbeing plummeted with the arrival of the First Fleets (Burton et al., 2009). Although Eurocentric historians and sociological theories of development typically interpret colonisation as bringing progress and benefit to backwards and inferior people, in reality colonisation brought great harm to Indigenous families and communities (Wotherspoon & Hansen, 2013, p. 28).

As with many of the British colonised countries, Australia was claimed under the British law of terra nullius, meaning belonging to no one (Anderson, 2003; Eckermann, 2010; Germov & Poole, 2014). Europeans disregarded the already established Indigenous population, the complexity and ordered structure of Australian First peoples, and instead took the view that they were nomads, a part of the flora and fauna with no real concept of land ownership or management. Therefore, they were driven off the land that was wanted for farming and grazing (P. Dudgeon, Kelly, & Walker, 2010; Eckermann, 2010).

Dispossession of land severely dislocated Aboriginal people from the social and cultural links that gave meaning to life, as well as the foods and medicines that sustained them. This started a process of massacres, discrimination and oppression that has resulted in the Aboriginal people being the most socially and economically depressed group in Australia. According to the ‘Social Darwinian Theory’, the Aboriginal people were viewed as biologically inferior and on the lowest rung of the civilisation scale. (Burton et al., 2009, p. 791)

There is no accurate figure of the Indigenous population in Australia before colonisation. The Australian Bureau of Statistics ("Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Population," 2008) suggests ‘a range from a minimum pre-1788 population of 315,000 to over one million people’. However, P. Dudgeon et al. (2010) state:

At the time of colonisation, there were approximately 260 distinct language groups and 500 dialects. Indigenous Australians lived in small family groups and were semi- nomadic, with each family group living in a defined territory, systematically moving across a defined area following seasonal changes. (p. 26)

The highest populations of Indigenous settlers were found in the southern and eastern regions of the continent and along the Murray River (W. R. Atkinson, 2010). These communities had complex and sophisticated social structures and systems and specific expertise, knowledge, tools, technologies, practices, and rituals that allowed them to adapt according to the geographic region, climate, and environment and maintain an enduring cultural connection for more than fifty thousand years (W. R. Atkinson, 2010).

There is no doubt that the colonial settlers were met with hostility and war and the traditional owners did all they could to protect themselves in what is known as ‘the uncontrolled frontier’

(Lippmann, 1999; Pascoe, 2007). Epidemic diseases including influenza, chickenpox, smallpox, and measles arrived along with the arrival of the first fleets on the eastern shores of Australia and quickly spread into Indigenous communities. These diseases are said to be the principal cause of population decline (Eckermann, 2010; Germov & Poole, 2014; L. R. Smith, 1980). Another consequence was the appropriation of traditional lands and waterways. The dispossession of traditional lands severely impacted their societies, access to food, water, and necessary resources, which was often fatal, particularly in communities that were already weakened by introducing the new diseases. In addition, the new settlers also brought alcohol, opium, and tobacco (P. Dudgeon et al., 2010). Moore (2014, p. 124) provides insight into the position of Indigenous people and how it lies within the broader context:

Through the nineteenth century, the attitudes of the wider population towards Aborigines were largely of indifference and condescension on the basis of their supposed childlike inability to participate in the modern world as equals. They were conceived as inferior, excluded from legal and administrative institutions and subject to special laws. They could not belong to wider society as equals and had limited agency in shaping their lives.

In addition to the loss of land, culture, and kinship, there was discrimination, exclusion, ignorance, and prejudice. For Indigenous Australians, the loss also included loss of sovereignty, no recognition as nations, no treaties, and no self-determination. To understand the position of Indigenous Australians today, the history must be known by all, and part of that history is the impact of colonisation and subsequent government policies that continue the colonisation process.

The position of the country’s first peoples was embedded in the country with the arrival of the First Fleet. There is strong evidence in the literature that indicates the ferocity with which the outnumbered traditional owners did their best to defend their country (Broome & Broome, 2010; Perkins, Langton, & Atkinson, 2010; Reynolds, 1987, 2003). Despite the strong, resilient, and proud culture, the repercussions of invasion followed by the process of dispossession through colonisation and the subsequent government policies will continue to impact Indigenous people’s lives, as they have over the many generations since 1788. While there is growing evidence of a shift in the approach to the advance of Indigenous people and

their position in Australian society, the results of this study imply an Indigenous belief that the assimilation policy, however implicitly, continues.

The sophistication of advocacy by Indigenous people for land and to sustain and recognise Indigenous sovereignty, to secure a place and a future; however eloquent it was during the White Australia Policy (1901), fell on deaf ears. The agenda of the government and politicians at the time was to ignore, wipe out, and practice genocide (Eckermann, 2010; Germov & Poole, 2014). This policy position later moved towards segregation (1890s–1950s) and, eventually, assimilation (1950s–60s) (Eckermann, 2010). Although Rogers (1973, p. 11) cites the Minister of the Interior, John McEwan, asserting in 1939:

The final object of the Government in its concern for these native people should be the raising of their status so as to entitle them by right, and by qualification, to the ordinary rights of citizenship, and enable them and help them to share with us the opportunities that are in their own native land.

Throughout the 1930s, advocacy for Indigenous rights was growing as Indigenous leaders continued to develop their skills to negotiate with governments. William Cooper was a well- respected Yorta Yorta leader who Attwood and Markus (2004, p. 11) describe as ‘a leader whose distinctive political programme presented a considerable challenge to governments in the past and continues to resonate strongly today’. Cooper’s hard work, dedication, and determination to improve circumstances for Indigenous peoples are evident in many published works, including newspaper articles, opinion pieces, and hand-written letters, particularly among government records. Markus (1983, p. 52) found 33 letters in the National Archives that contain Cooper’s signature. Cooper’s eminent petition to King George V in 1934 is among his greatest achievements. Although the petition was not presented to King George at the time, Cooper never gave up the fight for a better life, and his contribution has made a significant difference to the lives of Indigenous people. He advocated not only on behalf of the Yorta Yorta but also of Indigenous people all over Australia.

Not long after arrival, the government commenced the process of sorting Indigenous people into categories based on their assumed measure of Indigenous blood and then applying specific laws to these categorisations (Eckermann, 2010). This process continued through to

the 1960s. Sorted into ‘full-blood’ or ‘half-caste’, determined principally by skin colour and appearance, Indigenous Australians were subject to different laws. As Eckermann (2010) specifies:

… every act imposed on Aboriginal people between the 1800s and 1960s can be classified as an example of institutional racism and prior to that […] there were no specific government policies but rather ‘missionary inspired approaches within a general climate of neglect and elimination’ (2010, p. 21).

In 1967 the growing black movement was gaining momentum, and there was some recognition that the government had to right past mistakes. The government policy towards Indigenous people changed to integration (1967–72). There was a referendum to recognise Indigenous people as citizens of this country in the Australian Constitution (Burton et al., 2009). Prior to 1967, section 127 of the Australian Constitution stated: ‘in reckoning the numbers of people of the Commonwealth, aboriginal natives shall not be counted (Lippmann, 1999, p. 87). The outcome of the referendum was the largest yes vote of any referendum in Australia.

However, it was the 1967 referendum that ultimately transitioned Indigenous people into Western culture. It was a new social world, but it was also a new world of social exclusion that Indigenous people had never experienced before. The pressure of moving into townships and forced economic sustenance placed Indigenous people into a spiral of poverty. Eventually, assimilation was offered as a way out of poverty (Dodson, 1996; Eckermann, 2010). This, however, came at a cost: a loss of cultural affirmation and cultural celebration, further loss of land and language and a new world of exclusion, discrimination, and racism.

Racism and the absence of culture and personal affirmation were sacrifices for Indigenous people to leave the missions and move into towns to participate in mainstream society. There are lessons for us all to learn from that experience. These include the deliberate human injustice of White Australia and the strength and resilience of culture, strong personal identity and the endurance and instincts of Indigenous people to survive and tackle problems. The

persistence, commitment and belief of ancestors and elders over subsequent generations is that whatever the issues are, together they can be conquered.

The damage during the time of our great grandparents, grandparents, and even our parents, to the social, cultural, emotional, and spiritual wellbeing does, at times, seem irreversible (Perkins et al., 2010). However, there is a debate about constitutional recognition and treaty, and a move by the Victorian government in these directions (Morris, 2018) gives some hope of keeping the legacy, leadership, and advocacy for Indigenous people alive and, to some degree, impacts the future sustainability and the survival of Indigenous people in this country.

The Australian Government’s history of policies towards Australia’s First People included: The Aboriginal Protection Act (1869) (Broome, 2005), which saw the creation of missions around the country; and the Assimilation Act (1936), which saw the abolishment of missions around the country (Anderson, 2003; Reynolds, 1972). The data that depicts the profile of Indigenous peoples in Australia today is a result of the rejection of the assimilation policy and Indigenous people’s resistance to forego their cultural heritage and assimilate into Western society. Rowley (1972a) calls these ‘symptoms of frustration’. While he was using this phrase in relation to the results of frustration in the crime records, it can easily be translated into any of the social determinants data describing Indigenous peoples. Indigenous people in this country were excluded from economic participation, and although they were commonly used as slaves, they were never a part of economic development or wealth creation in the country.

YORTA YORTA CASE STUDY SITE The Yorta Yorta Nation is situated in the Goulburn Murray region of Victoria, north of Melbourne. Prior to European settlement, the Yorta Yorta peoples traditionally occupied the land around the Goulburn and Murray Rivers junction in southern New South Wales and North Central Victoria (Goulburn Murray Empowered Communities Report 2017). The Yorta Yorta people are river people who have an innate physical and spiritual connection to the waterways that remains an integral part of their cultural being. Yorta Yorta elder Uncle Col Walker explains the importance of Yorta Yorta peoples connection to the river as:

I think it is like a human body. The Murray River is the spine, and the Barmah Forest and Mira Lakes are the kidneys on both sides. That is how the old people used to look at it. They would say, ‘This is our life’. It is a living thing. We are the land, and we are mother earth. We fit in like that. It is important that I teach the young children the respect for the forest, the trees, the water, the streams, the lagoons, the water ways, as it is a part of us, and we are a part of them (Perkins et al., 2010, p. 288).

The Yorta Yorta Nation comprises eight different clan groups. Kailtheban; Wollithiga; Moira; Ulupna; Bangerang; Kwat Kwat; Yalaba Yalaba, and Ngurai-illiam-wurrung clans (Algabonyah Score Card 2017). Yorta Yorta region includes the lower Goulburn River, and towns such as Echuca, Cohuna, Shepparton, Benalla, Corowa, Wangaratta, Glenrowan, Rutherglen, Chiltern, Wahgunyah, Thoona, and Violet Town ("Our Region. Traditional Owners Yorta Yorta Nation," 2018).

Figure 1. Yorta Yorta Nations’ Traditional Boundaries. Source: "Our Region. Traditional Owners Yorta Yorta Nation" 2018)

The rural township of Shepparton, located on the Kaiela (Goulburn) River banks, is home to the highest population of Indigenous peoples in Victoria, excluding metropolitan Melbourne (Algabonyah Score Card 2017). The estimated population is around 129,000 ("Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Population," 2008). According to the ABS, Indigenous people made up a total of 3.6%. However, in 2006 the Shepparton Policy and Planning Unit (SPPU) identified a census undercount of the Indigenous community in the Goulburn Valley as a key issue (Algabonyah Score Card 2017). To address this issue, the SPPU established a relationship with the ABS to implement a targeted project aimed at increasing the participation of Indigenous people in the Goulburn Murray in the 2006 Census. The results of the independent research project critiquing the effectiveness of the ABS census in counting Indigenous people in the Shepparton/Mooroopna area identified an approximate 30% undercount in ABS figures – the total number of residents was estimated to be 2,131 as opposed to the ABS Census estimate of 1,664 (Algabonyah Score Card 2017).

The Yorta Yorta population is said to have been somewhere between five and six thousand before European settlement. It was reduced significantly (85%) after the frontier wars, disease and dispossession (W. Atkinson, 2011). According to Atkinson, ‘The recovery and survival from near extinction, and regrowth to pre-contact levels is a courageous show of strength, resilience, and determination and one that needs to be fully recognised (W. Atkinson, 2011).

Maloga and Cummeragunja Missions By the late 1800s, the remaining Yorta Yorta survivors were moved onto Maloga, an Aboriginal Mission on the Murray River not far from the township of Moama (1874–1888). This mission was established by a missionary and school teacher, Daniel Matthew, and his brother William (Cato, 1976, 1993). Maloga was privately founded by Matthew and had a strong Christian focus that eventually forced the residents to seek alternative accommodation (Cato, 1993). The implementation of the Aboriginal Protection Act (1869) moved the families to Cummeragunja Mission (Broome, 2005), again on the New South Wales side of the Murray River, only a few kilometres from Maloga. The Yorta Yorta people knew the mission as

‘Cummera’ (K. Harvey, 2003). Cummera created a space for families and community to be together after enduring 100 years of displacement, grief, loss, and trauma from invasion and colonisation (W. R. Atkinson, 2010). Cummeragunga and its people have a good deal to be proud of for living even as they have been for the last sixty-five years in semi-segregation, there have been some fine types come of their people who have been intelligent and proved they can adapt themselves to various kinds of employments and have been found to be efficient. Likewise in the world of sport, they have produced some of the best as I before mentioned in football and in foot running it has a record that I do not think could be equalled by any town in Australia. For it has claim to such men as the one time world’s champion, Lynch Cooper. Stan Charles, a runner-up at Stawell, Doug Nicholls, the late Eddie Briggs. This too reminds us of our old-time champion in the late Alf Morgan, a winner of the Botany Bay Handicap, a race equivalent to the Stawell Gift of today; also the late Bobby McDonald, famous as the introducer of the crouch start in foot running. (Morgan, 1952, p. 317)

The experiences of the missions exemplified the notions of Indigenous inferiority and white superiority. The Yorta Yorta residents questioned the justification of White control over Indigenous peoples. The mission era is where some of the governments’ most atrocious policies were implemented, including the assimilation policy that saw the removal of Aboriginal children from their families (K. Harvey, 2003) and inadequate supplies of necessities such as food, clothing, and blankets (Cato, 1993). Despite the lack of suitable accommodation, running water, electricity, and other basics, the small settlements had a strong and nurturing culture where the residents supported each other. W. R. Atkinson (2010, p. 294) states that Cummeragunja… also provided a base for the development of the Aboriginal political movement of the 1930s, led by some of Australia’s most outstanding political leaders of the calibre of William Cooper, Shadrach James, Sir Doug Nichols, Eddie Atkinson, Marj Tucker, Geraldine Briggs and many other fine men and women. The Yorta Yorta people have a proud history and a long list of honourable and influential leaders from Cummeragunja who fought hard for the rights of Indigenous peoples not only on their traditional lands but also nationally and internationally. Among them are Sir Doug Nichols, who addressed a parish on a Sunday afternoon in Melbourne (1939):

The skeleton in the cupboard of Australia’s national life is its treatment of the Aborigines. We Aborigines have not had a fair deal. It was bad enough for us to lose

our country, but it is one of the saddest stories of modern times that we should have become an outcast in our own land, with not even the rights and privileges that are extended to many aliens. We appeal for the right of education, for at least some of the rights of citizenship, for the chance to become useful citizens in the land that was ours by birth. (Zafaris, 2016, p. 41)

That same year (1939), around two hundred Cummeragunja residents walked off the reserve on the NSW–Victoria border ‘in protest over decades of mistreatment and abuse at the hands of the NSW Protection bureaucracy’ (Ward, 2016, p. 1). This thesis began with a quote from Jack Patten, a prominent Yorta Yorta leader who played a pivotal role in the Cummeragunja Walk-Off. The Walk-Off is said to be the first ever mass strike of Indigenous people in Australia (Lynch, Griggs, Joachim, & Walker, 2013). With the help of William Cooper, Jack Patten encouraged residents of Cummera to leave, which resulted in the Walk-Off.

William Cooper was the founder of the Australian Aborigines League (1933). This was among the first Aboriginal political organisations formed in Australia (W. R. Atkinson, 2010; Attwood & Markus, 2004). Cooper was supported by other Yorta Yorta leaders coming off Cummeragunja that W. Atkinson (2011) mentioned above, including Margaret Tucker and Thomas Shadrach James. The purpose of the Australian Aborigines League was to provide a platform to challenge unfair legislation and offer an alternative approach that would see the uprise of Indigenous people (Attwood & Markus, 2004). The Cummeragunja Walk-Off was a significant event in the history of relations between Indigenous and non-Indigenous peoples; it was in response to the cruel treatment, poor living conditions, increased restrictions, and unreasonable control that the government imposed on Indigenous peoples living on missions.

In 1939, when the families were walking off Cummeragunja in protest, they were not allowed into the surrounding established townships of Shepparton, Echuca, or Nathalia (W. R. Atkinson, 2010). They were not welcome in the towns that were built on their traditional lands. Instead, they were left on the fringes of these towns. Many of those who left Cummeragunja settled on ‘The Flats’, an area between Shepparton and Mooroopna that is a significant cultural area. This is where families relocated after the Cummeragunja Walk-Off in

February 1939 (Lynch et al., 2013), although a few families were residing on The Flats prior to the Walk-Off. At that time, The Flats was where the rubbish tip was located.

The Flats was located on the bend of the Goulburn River near Mooroopna (W. R. Atkinson, 2010). The land that was once home to Indigenous peoples escaping the missions is now known as KidsTown. Significant investment has gone into building a play area for children. There is also a local restaurant and café owned by a local Yorta Yorta woman who is a direct descendant of Thomas Shadrach James. In partnership with Shepparton City Council, Goulburn Broken Catchment Authority, Yorta Yorta Nations, and Parks Victoria, signage was installed in 2013 that tells the history of The Flats, identifying specific areas that are of cultural significance to the Yorta Yorta people. The storyboards are a way of recording history for educational and tourism purposes ("History of The Flats," 2011). Tours of The Flats can be booked through Yorta Yorta Nations. Descendants of residents of The Flats provide a thorough history and personal account of their knowledge of this period.

Yorta Yorta Native Title In 1998 Justice Olney of the Federal Court of Australia delivered a ruling on the Yorta Yorta Native Title Claim outcome. The Native Title claim was the first in Australia after the Mabo vs Queensland ruling in 1992 (Strelein, 2009). The Mabo case is an important part of Australian history because it destroyed the notion of terra nullius, the legal basis that denied the existence of Indigenous people prior to European settlement (Langton, 2010). Before Mabo, there was no recognition of prior Indigenous rights (W. Atkinson, 2001).

Although the outcome of the Yorta Yorta Native Title claim (1998) saw Justice Olney rule that ‘The tide of history has undoubtedly washed away any traditional rights that the indigenous people may have previously exercised in relation to controlling access to their land within the claim area’ (Australia, 1998, p. 126), the Yorta Yorta people believe: The Yorta Yorta Nation is comprised of peoples with undeniable bloodlines to the Original Ancestors of the Land of the Yorta Yorta Nation. These bloodlines link our past, present and future to one another, with traditional laws, customs, beliefs and sovereignty intact. ("Our Region. Traditional Owners Yorta Yorta Nation," 2018)

They maintain that as a Nation, they continue their innate connection as traditional owners and occupants of the land to this day and that their social, cultural, economic, and spiritual connection to country has never been compromised (Pitty, 1999; Ritter, 2004; Strelein, 2009; Young, 2001). The outcome of the Native claim was met with heartbreaking disappointment in the Indigenous community. It was seen as a sad failure to deliver justice to the Yorta Yorta people after years of neglect and struggle. As W. Atkinson (2001, p. 22) suggests:

The appropriation of land and resources without consent and without the provision of compensation continues to deny Indigenous people their legal entitlements. The common law provides equality before the law for settler interests but then treats Indigenous tide as an inferior form of land ownership. The rhetoric of ‘full respect’ and equality supposedly given to native tide in Mabo is not mirrored in the way it is being applied in the administration of the NTA: As demonstrated in the Yorta Yorta case, the attainment of these principles is dependent on the extent to which a settler society is prepared to concede its dominance in favour of fairness and equality before the law.

The decision to deny Yorta Yorta Native Title illustrates how the law can be construed to not only justify land theft but to preserve White privilege and the status quo of Indigenous peoples.

The estimated population of 3,673 Indigenous people1 in the Goulburn Murray region are living in a highly uncertain political environment that, from an Indigenous perspective, is generally characterised by a lack of coordination and overlap in key areas of government policy and planning. This is evident in the outcome of the Yorta Yorta Native title decision, which in effect denied Yorta Yorta existence and dismissed any acknowledgement of the legitimacy of their being. The failure to acknowledge Indigenous people has created a legacy of poor government decision-making that has numerous adverse side effects for Indigenous peoples living on Yorta Yorta country. The trauma from that experience has never been addressed, dealt with, or compensated. The Yorta Yorta Native Title claim is discussed in more detail in chapters Five and Seven.

1 A figure that is considered significantly undercounted from the 2016 Census (Algabonyah Community Report, 2018) 49

Cultural Resistance A Deliberate Ploy The Yorta Yorta are continuing the pioneering work of Jack Patten, William Cooper and Thomas Shadrach James, advocating for a different approach for the betterment of Indigenous people, recognising their inherent rights, both as human beings and as traditional owners. An inclusive approach that encompasses the community’s vision and aspirations to assertively advocate and drive change towards the social, cultural and economic value of Indigenous people in the community and impact change within the wider community is the goal. The work on repositioning value considers how to turn the curve to reverse the decline in the wellbeing of Indigenous peoples and look beyond parity. Their plan argues that crisis interventions and deficit, disadvantage frameworks are not working; therefore, a new approach is needed. Their approach focuses on high expectations, cultural affirmation, and community leadership that is fundamentally supported by a human rights framework.

The Yorta Yorta people believe they have a formula for impacting social change (Goulburn Murray Empowered Communities Report 2017). The work of the Kaiela Institute, and before that the Shepparton Policy and Planning Unit and Koori Resource and Information Centre, has played an important role in advocating for change over many years (Algabonyah Score Card 2017). They believe that because the Indigenous community is investing in a shift from minimum expectations and standards to high expectations, the wider community and the government are starting to respond. High expectations, cultural affirmation, sustainability, respect, and value are critical ingredients in the relationship between Indigenous and non- Indigenous people and in the collaboration and design of strategies and policies that will impact change.

The concept of repositioning value is challenging a region of leaders to think differently, to set targets that the entire region is held accountable to – government, industry, and community. A target is set against a strategy with performance measures along the way. The performance measures for their proposal are not only considering the deficits such as a reduction in crime, juvenile justice or how sick we are. They are more sophisticated, more integrated, more accountable, and more specific for that region. For example, the policy, planning, and infrastructure design that addresses education, health, and justice follow the

bureaucracy of commonwealth and state governments. There is a challenge and an opportunity to get a better return on investment that goes into Indigenous communities.

The Yorta Yorta people are trying to move into a healthier space by moving away from crisis intervention towards building aspiration, which has been a challenge (Goulburn Murray Empowered Communities Report 2017). One of the biggest challenges they face after 200 years of oppression and discrimination is assuring Indigenous people that it is safe, that they will be accepted and valued for their innate cultural differences. Even for a young Indigenous person who gets through secondary school and earns a degree, there is no guarantee that they will have the same opportunity for employment as everyone else. Unfortunately, their inherent cultural ties and Indigenous identity are an identifier as to whether they are going to be able to find meaningful employment. The Kaiela Institute has been working to support leaders and institutions to collaborate and take a more strategic approach to building the future of the Indigenous community ("Kaiela Institute Independent Centre for Leadership and Innovation ", 2018). They have also been working in the employment and education space, trying to find a place and space for Indigenous people to participate in wider society and a substantial amount of equally vital work to sustain Indigenous culture.

The community is working hard to drive action to improve outcomes for Indigenous people in the region, shifting the approach to impact change in the structural determinants and building on the social engagement through structural and institutional change to challenge individuals, families, communities successfully, and ultimately, society’s deeply embedded adverse perceptions of Australia’s first peoples (Eckermann, 2010). The community is working to influence national dialogue about regional community governance, recognising the community cannot afford to wait for a national voice to drive those conversations. A national voice on Indigenous policy needs to have its roots in the Indigenous community, as close as possible to the people for whom the decisions are being made.

The Kaiela Institute is situated in Shepparton as one of the lead Indigenous organisations that focuses on a more strategic approach to addressing Indigenous disadvantage on Yorta Yorta country. Much of the groundwork was led by the Koori Resource and Information Centre (KRIC). A Council of Australian Governments (COAG) trial laid the foundation for collaboration 51

between community, governments and industry (Empowered Communities: Empowered People Design Report, 2015, p. 132). Since then, subsequent efforts to enable Indigenous people to work towards sustainability and advocacy towards adequate resourcing have contributed to opportunities to review current community governance and participate in community planning and decision-making. Strengthening community governance and investing in building the local and regional capacity of community have been key priorities of the organisation. The Kaiela Institute presents a discussion model to take back to the community for consultation to seek feedback. The Kaiela Institute have been working on the regional model since the COAG trial in 2003. The agenda at the time was to move forward with closing the gap to address parity from a collective use of resources within the community. The Uluru Statement from the Heart has contributed to opening up a national conversation, the treaty conversation is occurring at the Victorian state level, and the proposition of a state representative body established on a treaty in 2019.

Challenges The Yorta Yorta people, like most Indigenous communities around Australia, are still bearing the burden of invasion, colonisation, assimilation, segregation, and the continuation of failed government policies from inherited White structures and the systematic and institutional racism that the country was built on. The Yorta Yorta people were not immune to government policies reflected in the thinking around genocide, segregation, and later, assimilation practices that were about disrespect and a lack of knowledge, understanding, or willingness to engage with the sophistication of Indigenous practices and knowledges.

INDIGENOUS ORGANISATIONS Eight key Indigenous organisations are working to maintain the overall health and wellbeing of Indigenous peoples in the Goulburn Murray region of Victoria. An outline of each of the organisations is presented below.

Rumbalara Aboriginal Cooperative

In 1972, the development of infrastructure in Indigenous communities commenced. At that time, the works mainly addressed crisis and included health, legal, and childcare services. The 52

Rumbalara Aboriginal Cooperative was the first Indigenous organisation for the region. It originally operated out of one of the old one-bedroom, mud-brick homes on The Flats. The residents were tired of the treatment they were receiving when trying to access mainstream health services and therefore worked to find a visiting doctor to provide medical care.

The area known as Rumbalara has a traditional history dating back many thousands of years. The contemporary history of Rumbalara began on the river flats between Shepparton and Mooroopna in the 1940s. Large numbers of our people who were seeking work and dissatisfied with management and conditions at Cummeragunja moved to the area and settled. The Cummeragunja Walk-Off occurred in February 1939 and was the first Indigenous mass protest in Australia. (RAC, 2017)

Rumbalara was not originally intended to provide permanent accommodation; rather, it was a form of temporary accommodation until families were housed in the wider community. ‘By 1969, most local families had been re-housed, and as it was no longer being used, Rumbalara closed and remained so for five years (RAC, 2017).

The community fought the government to retain the title for Rumbalara as a place for the community to continue cultural and social activities and provide services to the community. A medical centre was built on the lands in 1981 (Rumbalara Aboriginal Cooperative). Today, Rumbalara Aboriginal Cooperative is recognised as one of the leading Aboriginal community controlled health services in Australia and provides a range of services to meet the health and social needs of the community.

Yorta Yorta Nation Aboriginal Cooperation The Yorta Yorta Nation Aboriginal Cooperation (YYNAC) was established following the unsuccessful Native Title Claim in 1998. Amongst other objectives, the YYNAC was established to represent the members of the family groups, who are descendants of the Original Ancestors of the Yorta Yorta Peoples – to make decisions and act on any matters of significance to the Yorta Yorta Peoples and to enter into agreements with any person, government agency or authority in relation to the protection of Yorta Yorta country ("Traditional Owner objectives and outcomes: Compilation of contributions to Victoria’s water resource plans," 2019, p. 145).

The YYNAC is the representative body for the region on issues about land management and Indigenous knowledge and practice. Through a joint initiative with Parks Victoria, YYNAC manage and care for the National Parks and ‘have legislative status as the Representative Aboriginal Party for cultural heritage protection and management of the crown lands within their tribal territories (W. Atkinson, 2013).

Lulla’s Children and Family Centre Lulla’s Children and Family Centre is an Indigenous-owned and operated childcare centre focusing on the early years that looks after children and families. The principal purpose of the centre is long daycare and preschool ("Lulla's Children and Family Centre," 2016). This centre evolved out of two children’s services that previously operated in the region: Badja, which provided preschool and kindergarten; and Lidja Mac’s, the original daycare centre. The centre focuses on a culturally appropriate curriculum that provides a holistic approach to the early years and extends into additional primary and secondary education support. Lulla’s currently offers some onsite community health services (e.g. speech therapists, occupational therapists). Lulla’s mission is:

To provide Aboriginal children – from birth to school age – with a range of early- learning educational and care programs. These programs will reinforce their cultural identity and build their self-esteem and self-confidence, providing a foundation for lifelong learning ("Lulla's Children and Family Centre," 2016). Upon graduating from Lulla’s kindergarten program and transitioning into primary school, each family is gifted a traditional cloak with the student’s totem and tribe inscribed. Possum skin cloaks are significant in south-eastern Australia. They are a symbol of belonging and tell: stories of place and stories of the sacred and spiritual, representing the unique and distinct tribes and language groups of south-eastern Australia. The effects of the revival of Possum Skin Cloaks as a community cultural practice have been significant and profound. (Couzens, 2020)

The Rumbalara Football Netball Club Rumbalara Football Netball Club (RFNC) is one of two Indigenous sporting clubs in Victoria. Rumbalara means ‘the end of the rainbow’ (Proud Strong Family. How we built Rumba, 2010). The club is one example of the Yorta Yorta people taking charge of their destiny and

succeeding against significant opposition and cultural bias (Proud Strong Family. How we built Rumba, 2010). Perhaps the best example of institutional racism in the Goulburn Murray region, the RFNC sits at the end of Mercury Drive and is divided from the rest of the sporting precinct by what the local community refer to as the ‘alligator’ moat, a water basin that runs the perimeter of the south and west boundaries and visibly cuts off the club from being a part of the $25 million sports precinct development that belongs to the Greater Shepparton City Council.

The Indigenous-owned and run club stems from the Cummeragunja Invincibles (1894). The Invincibles is another story involving Thomas Shadrach James, who acted as the Invincibles’ inaugural secretary. He applied to the Bendigo Football Association to play a few games in 1894 (Zafaris, 2016).

The club spent a quarter of a century without a league before finally being allowed to compete in a mainstream league in 1997. While its main business is footy (Australian Rules football) and netball – the club engages more than 300 community members, fielding five football sides (including a women’s football team) and nine netball sides – it is more about community, culture, connectedness, and pride. Every week during the footy season, the club colours (blue representing the sky and the waterways and black, yellow and red representing the Aboriginal flag colours) embroiled across the jerseys and dresses reflecting the Dungala and Kaiela rivers go out to battle. While the aim on the day is to win a game, sports and the arts have been critical to rebranding Indigenous people. The club has been at the forefront of challenging and reframing social norms that consistently perpetuate racism and social stigma. It has provided leadership and mentoring, generated participation in the arts and communication, and challenged the region in a way that intervention programs do not (Paul Briggs, 2018b). The RFNC has been one of the tools used to dig out, challenge, and look at ways to reframe social norms for healthier outcomes.

The club’s off the fieldwork is what earned the RFNC its reputation. As one of only two Indigenous sporting clubs in the state, it is a cultural hub that, in a modern, White dominated society, sustains culture and maintains cultural identity and connection. The

Club builds community, promotes good health, and tackles social exclusion and barriers to education and employment.

In the social rooms among the honour boards, photographs of premiership teams and league medallists, on the west wall is a mural called the Nanyak Wall. Nanyak means ‘dreaming’ in Yorta Yorta. The mural includes a beautifully handwoven storyboard by local Indigenous women and children portraying Biami, the Yorta Yorta Creator Spirit, each component telling the history of the Yorta Yorta people. Surrounding the mural are photographs capturing the memories and spirit and telling tales of where the community has come from, including renowned leader, Pastor Sir Douglas Nicholls, ‘the Invisibles’ and others who have been in the Yorta Yorta and Rumbalara Football Club journey.

The club arguably represents president Paul Briggs’ best life work. When asked about his experience working in Indigenous affairs, he replied, ‘I have never seen my role as a job as such, it’s just something you sort of inherit and you have a responsibility to look after people and kids’ (Paul Briggs, 2014). Frustrated with the lack of opportunities for Indigenous people to participate in mainstream sporting clubs, he recognised the important role of sport in not only providing an avenue for participation but also building a platform for social cohesion both in the Indigenous and non-Indigenous space, so he set about establishing a club where both were welcomed. The Rumbalara Aboriginal Cooperative purchased the Mercury Drive property 20 years prior to being allowed into a mainstream sporting league in 1997. The length of time the club spent rallying to be admitted to a competition highlights the racial stigma of the time. The club has played an important role in highlighting intolerance and tackling social exclusion head-on.

The club’s philosophy is, if young people are involved and supported in school, sport, and community activities, they are more likely to enjoy a fulfilling life. The Club's positioning within the regional community has earned respect and praise from its constituents and partners as a direct result of Uncle Paul’s tireless work. The RFNC first took to the football fields and netball courts in 1997. However, its roots go back to the Cummeragunja Aboriginal Reserve, a mission created by government administrators on the banks of the Dungala (Murray) River. This Reserve separated Indigenous people from the wider

community and denied them access to mainstream education, livelihoods and careers. The policy of the day discouraged the use of traditional language and cultural customs, thus contributing to the devaluing and marginalisation of Indigenous peoples.

The Cummeragunja Aboriginal Reserve football team won many matches and attracted a reputation for sporting prowess, and became known as the ‘Invincibles’ because it won six premierships in 11 seasons. However, the Picola Football League then introduced a new rule that set the maximum age for a player at 25 years. This rule diminished the capacity of the reigning premiers to compete. Exactly 100 years after Cummeragunja won its first premiership, the RFNC claimed the Senior Football Premiership. After 20 years, the Club is now strong enough to expand its activities to ensure there is intergenerational (current players, parents, and elders) acceptance and engagement to secure a meaningful future with employment, healthy lifestyles, cultural affirmation, and parity.

A report commissioned by the RFNC and undertaken by La Trobe University found for every $1 invested in cash, volunteer time, and other resources to run the club, the investment generates at least a $5.45 return in social value (The Social Value of an Aboriginal Run Sporting Club, 2017). The club operates with cultural authority, led by Indigenous leaders from within the community, and in response has worked hard to win the respect of the community.

The RFNC provides leadership and guidance within the region for Indigenous and non- Indigenous populations; it is a source of social connectedness, cultural affirmation, and wellbeing for its constituents and others in the community. To demonstrate its commitment to a reasoned and strategic focus to advance its community’s well-being, the club accommodates, manages, or facilitates a variety of programs that provides a platform to address social inclusion and break down some of the stereotypes of Indigenous people.

Academy of Sport, Health and Education The Academy of Sport, Health and Education (ASHE) is an Indigenous owned and run education institution that, in a partnership between the RFNC and the University of Melbourne, offers VCE, VCAL and Certificate level courses. The ASHE was formed to help teenage Indigenous youth in education because there was a recognition that the mainstream

schooling system was not able to cater to the needs of all Indigenous children in education and did not cater to the needs of all Indigenous youth. The ASHE developed its own Indigenous Studies curriculum, which is taught to all students enrolled in their respective courses ("The Academy of Sport Health and Education ", 2019). The ASHE is now evolving into the Munarra Centre of Regional Excellence, a partnership with the state government, the City of Greater Shepparton, and the University of Melbourne. The word ‘Munarra’ is Yorta Yorta, which translates to mean thunder. Munarra was deliberately chosen to reflect the purpose of the envisaged infrastructure within the broader context as making a loud noise. The idea is with thunder comes one of life’s necessities: the rain, which nourishes the land and gives and sustains life. Munarra is about making a noise in the Indigenous community and in the wider community as it looks to deliver a $23 million investment by the state government into the sporting precinct of the region, not only for Indigenous people but for everyone. The building of the Munarra Centre for Regional Excellence has been a long journey and is an important collaboration between partners that have made a significant investment in the ASHE and will continue that investment into Munarra. It provides some sense of the progress that has been made within the community and the trust and belief that the Yorta Yorta people can contribute to the broader economy outside the crisis intervention space.

Ganbina Ganbina Koori Economic Employment & Training Agency Inc was founded in Shepparton in 1994. Its core business is to improve the overall experience for young people in education, employment, and training prospects ("Ganbina: Agents for Change ", 2019). It helps students find part-time employment and assists with the necessities of working such as obtaining relevant identification, tax file numbers, bank accounts, and other services such as assisting young people to acquire a driver’s licence. Ganbina also runs an annual senior year’s leadership course, where a select group of secondary school participants are chosen to partake in a cultural exchange and leadership program in New Zealand. Ganbina works independently from any of the other Indigenous organisations in the community. However, they ensure that they ‘act either as a consultation organisation for the local Indigenous community or as a direct service provision agency’ ("Ganbina: Agents for Change ", 2019).

The Kaiela Institute The Kaiela Institute is the main community organisation driving the prosperity on country and repositioning value plan. The Kaiela Institute evolved from the Koori Resource and Information Centre (KRIC) and the Shepparton Policy and Planning Unit (SPPU) that Paul Briggs founded in 1988. The Kaiela Institute is one of the Empowered Communities sites for the Goulburn Murray region. "Kaiela Institute Independent Centre for Leadership and Innovation " 2018) identifies: The Goulburn-Murray region are working hard to build aspiration, optimism and capability so that our people have collective ownership of our society. Our vision is the creation of an integrated community where indigenous people’s rights are supported and our contributions are valued and celebrated.

The Kaiela Institute is working to establish an inclusive model for Indigenous self-governance by establishing the Algabonyah Community Cabinet. The purpose of the Algabonyah Community Cabinet is to design and establish a Regional Negotiations Table as the primary mechanism for supporting Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal collaboration and negotiation of activity scope and investment on Yorta Yorta country. It is a key component of the region’s reposition value strategy. As a part of the Indigenous regional self-governance model, the Institute is also establishing an Indigenous-owned Data Unit. The Algabonyah Data Unit, discussed in detail below, will provide an evidence base for the setting of regional priorities and a sound, transparent, and accountable structure for regional decision-making. In its fully functioning form, the Data Unit will be integral to supporting the design and implementation of the Algabonyah Community Cabinet and informing decisions by providing an ongoing evaluative function that facilitates evidence-based decision-making and transparency. In its capacity as Secretariat for the Algabonyah Community Cabinet, The Kaiela Institute has envisioned a future regional operating model underpinned by: • inclusive, community-based representative governance • equal participation in regional policy and investment decisions • ongoing, two-way community feedback • evidence-based decision-making that affirms and sustains culture • independence and data sovereignty.

Figure 2 – Emergent operating model for Aboriginal regional self-governance in the Goulburn Murray region (Paul Briggs & Nixon, 2018).

Figure 2 illustrates the Kaiela Institute’s emergent operating model for Indigenous regional self-governance in the Goulburn Murray region (Goulburn Murray Empowered Communities Report 2017). As a first step, the proposal seeks the resourcing required to undertake a necessary in-depth community consultation process to inform the further design detail and subsequently implement the major elements of the permanent Algabonyah Community Cabinet, the Algabonyah Data Unit and the Regional Negotiations Table functions. The 60

emergent model forms the basis of the regional approach to repositioning the social, cultural, and economic value of Indigenous people in the region. As suggested in Figure 2, the Algabonyah Community Cabinet is the main governance body representing Aboriginal people living in the Goulburn Murray region. The Regional Negotiations Table is a key function of the Algabonyah Community Cabinet, serving as the mechanism by which the Cabinet collaborates and negotiates with external bodies, including government, industry, and institutions. The Algabonyah Data Unit will collect and report on relevant quantitative and qualitative data to provide the evidence base to support the negotiations of the Cabinet at the Regional Negotiations Table and evaluate the region’s progress towards achieving Aboriginal-defined priorities. The Kaiela Institute’s proposed work plan for the implementation is presented in Figure 3 below. The work plan across all three workstreams has been designed with the Indigenous community in the region as the central focus, with multiple opportunities for two-way engagement, feedback, and influence between project control elements and the community. Ultimately, the final design of the Algabonyah Community Cabinet and the setting of regional priorities will be driven by community feedback through community consultations.

Figure 3 – Aboriginal regional self-governance in the Goulburn Murray Workplan overview (Paul Briggs & Nixon, 2018).

The Kaiela Institute believes that the establishment of a regional self-governance body will remedy the adverse social, economic, and health impacts Aboriginal people have experienced since being displaced from their lands under colonisation. Critically, the model represents a shift in decision-making authority away from the mainstream and supports Indigenous self- determination, identity, cultural affirmation, and value in Indigenous people. Specifically, a broad rejection of the current government approach to Indigenous affairs is required to match policy rhetoric. The current approach is focused primarily on the funding of intervention-based policy frameworks and programs that perpetuate a survivalist mentality amongst Indigenous people rather than supporting the ideas put forward under self- determination. The emergent regional governance model is a key factor in the community’s prosperity plan to influence, advise, and direct investment into the region by facilitating decision making and priority setting that is grounded in empirical evidence, giving rise to a rights-based model. The Kaiela Institute’s Regional Model of Governance aims: • To set its own strategic directions outside of political cycles to overcome the problems created by historic government interventionist approaches towards Indigenous people. • To represent a unique approach to integrated, collaborative decision making between the Indigenous and non-Indigenous communities. • To serve as a forum for the Indigenous community in the region to set priorities, voice concerns, and resolve issues within an agreed, well-defined governance structure built on the recommendations of community members. • To provide a focal point for government to engage with the Indigenous community in the Goulburn Murray region in an ongoing capacity. The model will foster collaboration and engagement between the Indigenous and non-Indigenous communities and be replicated across Victoria. (Our Progress Measuring Towards Prosperity For Aboriginal People In The Goulburn Murray Region, 2018)

Through the community establishing an independent Data Unit, they will have the means for making evidence-based decisions and measures a whole-of-region achievement against Indigenous community-led priorities. The Algabonyah Data Unit’s role in promoting data- sharing and collection amongst Indigenous and non-Indigenous organisations promotes 62

transparency and relevancy in developing and implementing policies, programs, and strategies across the region (Goulburn Murray Empowered Communities Report 2017).

This chapter began with an outline of the health and wellbeing of Indigenous people’s pre- invasion. It was argued that Indigenous peoples had a quality of life and a level of wellbeing that was equal to any other culture on the planet. We know that wellbeing plummeted with the arrival of the convict fleets, the frontier wars, dispossession, oppression, segregation, and colonisation (Burton et al., 2009; Germov & Poole, 2007). The Goulburn Murray approach is looking for a way to reverse the decline in what they describe as ‘the quality of life curve’ (Figure 4).

Figure 4. Quality of Life Curve. Source: Paul Briggs and Nixon (2018) Closing the Gap technical presentation, Canberra.

The quality of life curve is one aspect of the Kaiela Institute’s prosperity plan to reposition Indigenous peoples' social, cultural and economic value in the region. The visual representation (Figure 4) illustrates that Indigenous peoples' overall quality of life and wellbeing on Yorta Yorta country pre-invasion was equal if not better than non-Indigenous

people. The timeline between 1788 and 2000 shows a rapid decline in the quality of life and wellbeing. The vision is to not only reverse the decline but to look beyond parity to high expectations, cultural affirmation, community leadership, and the rights of Indigenous peoples being supported and valued.

Algabonyah Data Unit In addition to the emergent regional governance model, the Kaiela Institute has been working to establish its own regional data unit since 2016 ("Kaiela Institute Independent Centre for Leadership and Innovation ", 2018). Having a regional data unit provides the community with the ability to measure the effectiveness of how Indigenous resources are administered and enables the community to set priorities and make projections based on strategies. It also gives the community the ability to track and measure how effectively they are addressing those priorities and how Indigenous people are integrated within society in a valuable way. With long term, sustainable funding, the Algabonyah Data Unit will eventually measure the success of the investment into the region. The Kaiela Institute was successful in a bid to establish the Data Unit in 2017. The unit began to highlight some of the current measures and produced an Annual Score Card that identified the current position of the Indigenous community in the region (Algabonyah Score Card 2017). However, it was not strong enough in terms of sustainability of long-term funding and sufficient resources to measure trends over a period of time. In the first 12 months, the Data Unit found that most of the data is locked down in the silos of bureaucracy, so building that data set with limited funding was challenging.

However, the unit found that most organisations were willing to collaborate and share data. The Kaiela Institute is looking to re-establish the Algabonyah Data Unit as both a strength and a key initiative in driving the emergent regional governance model with accountability and responsibility for social, cultural, and economic inclusion in the region. The modelling the Kaiela Institute has been working on over the past ten years is underpinned by the aspirations of the community, pursuing education, and esteem that contributes to the growth and development of Indigenous people contributing to the overall prosperity of the region. The re-establishment of the Algabonyah Data Unit and the regional model will ensure that different measures that are more aligned with the community’s vision and priorities, as

opposed to counting the numbers for Indigenous people that are in the deficit, will be applied. The Data Unit is a key component of the community’s prosperity plan.

DISEMPOWERMENT AND THE DOMINATION OF GOVERNMENT An Access Economics Report commissioned by the community highlights how the lack of a regional representative governance body accountable to the Indigenous community fails to create incentives for industry, institutions, and government at all levels to drive improved socio-economic outcomes (Economics, 2018). Research conducted for the Kaiela Institute (Gould, 2017) found ‘unnecessary complexity’ in the Australian legislative and policy framework regarding the rights and opportunities for Indigenous people and the obligations of government at the Federal, State and local level. This has contributed to:

• crisis intervention focused policies that contribute to negative stereotypes, driven by Western concepts of wellbeing (e.g. ‘Closing the Gap’, Indigenous-specific family violence policies) • challenges for Indigenous communities and organisations attempting to manage relationships across different government networks caused by fragmented, and sometimes conflicting, policy and funding decisions • a historical overemphasis on advisory-based self-determination functions that lack real power to make decisions on investment into priorities that will drive the growth and prosperity of Indigenous communities • policies that place the onus to improve on Indigenous communities themselves, rather than creating an obligation for mainstream society to invest in the development of Indigenous communities.

Existing governing bodies, and government policies more broadly, are not designed to reflect the priorities of Indigenous people in the region and currently, decision-making underpinning policies affecting Indigenous people across the region:

• are not designed to credit and celebrate where gains have been made at a localised level across education, culture, economic development, or social wellbeing (Algabonyah Score Card 2017)

• are not designed to value activities that affirm culture or build collective aspiration and community confidence • risk setting a low bar for ‘closing the gap’ in some socio-economic areas where the region is already comparatively disadvantaged when measured against state or national averages • lack relevance and understanding of regional context, discouraging local ownership of activity, and leading to ongoing racism and negative stereotyping.

Many factors are likely to have contributed to a political system that does not hear the voices of Indigenous people. These include a lack of an overarching policy or legislative instrument enshrining the rights of Indigenous people, despite Australia being a signatory to the United Nations Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Isolated and fragmented funding and policy decisions because of failure to impart whole-of- government approaches and a history of siloed engagement and onerous advisory functions in Indigenous communities are also contributing factors, as is a lack of localised, trusted Indigenous representation in decision making.

Goulburn Murray region representatives argue that there is a critical need for government at all levels to invest in an alternative approach to Indigenous community development and self-determination. The proposal is for a whole-of-community approach to develop the next generation of Indigenous leaders and realise the voice, capabilities, and ambitions of current community leaders who have no suitable avenue to participate in regional decision making. At present, there is a lack of transparent, accountable, and culturally appropriate decision making and governance structures that are both created by and representative of Indigenous people in the Goulburn Murray region. This means there is no place to address the ongoing ‘invisibility’ of the culture of Indigenous people, specifically the Yorta Yorta, on their own land.

There is a need for the community leaders to collect their own data to facilitate the transition from anecdotal to evidence-based decision making and priority setting that can hold the entire region to account for improving the social health, wellbeing, and cultural affirmation of Indigenous people living in the Goulburn Murray region. Historical policy

trends have established a status quo model where the Goulburn Murray region and its institutions fundamentally lack cultural competency, relegating Indigenous peoples to the margins of society. This is evident through the prevalence of intervention-based infrastructure (e.g., family violence support centres, housing crisis support, justice centres) in regional centres such as Shepparton and Echuca.

REGIONAL SELF-GOVERNANCE PROPOSAL A key component of the region’s Prosperity Plan to Reposition the Value of Indigenous Peoples in the region is the Kaiela Institute’s Algabonyah Community Cabinet (ACC). The ACC concept of representative self-governance was first defined in 2015 through community consultation undertaken to support the development of the Commonwealth Government’s Empowered Communities initiative (Empowered Communities: Empowered People Design Report, 2015). Under the original proposal, the Kaiela Institute was to act as the Secretariat Algabonyah Community Cabinet, which would be comprised of opt-in Aboriginal-controlled organisations who would come together to negotiate with external bodies at a ‘regional negotiations table’, a key function of the Algabonyah Community Cabinet. The ACC structure has gone through an evolution since the commencement of Empowered Communities (overviewed in Figure 5). This evolution has taken place organically as elements of the original model have proven either successful or challenging.

Figure 5 – Evolution of the Algabonyah Community Cabinet (ACC) since its conception as part of the Empowered Communities Design Report (2015).

The Kaiela Institute’s emergent operating model to engender Indigenous regional governance in the Goulburn Murray has been designed to remedy the current lack of collaboration, collective vision, and cohesive strategy that has prevented meaningful achievement of regional priorities. Specifically, the model is grounded in the assertion that collective regional accountability towards the achievement of priorities requires ‘holistic, coordinated and long- term effort involving an agreed partnership between government, community, industry and the service delivery sector’ (Empowered Communities: Empowered People Design Report, 2015).

Importantly, the model attempts to shift decision-making power closer to the ground level, thereby giving Indigenous people in the Goulburn Murray an increasing sense of ownership of their own futures and buy-in to the institutions and social infrastructure that surround them in the region. The proposal recognises there is a critical need to reaffirm the previous set priorities with the community. Implementing a formal model for governance and decision- making will enable the establishment of strategic direction to ensure real achievement against newly established priorities. The Kaiela Institute’s proposal has put together an Indigenous Empowerment Policy with two foci: to close the gap on social and economic disadvantage and cultural recognition and determination of Indigenous Australians. There is a drive to go beyond ‘closing the gap’ and reaching economic parity in the Goulburn Murray region; they also seek to achieve cultural affirmation and self-determination.

The concept of repositioning value aims to see a shift in the overarching policies for Indigenous communities from intervention to investment: a human rights-based approach focusing on strengths, self-determination, and self-governance. An approach that affirms culture and identity as the underpinning stimulus of prosperity and productivity. The proposition encourages a holistic approach that is not siloed or issues-based that will work across all government and industry levels in the region.

The Goulburn Murray approach lends a different lens to improving the local Indigenous population's quality of life and well-being from one of deficit and disadvantage to one of prosperity and investment. There have been several initiatives that have utilised the current infrastructure and resources already available in the community to affect change. One example is the RFNC, which uses sport as a means of connecting with individuals, family and community. The RFNC has engaged Indigenous and non-indigenous people in the region. After more than 20 years of resistance, RFNC is cautiously feeling some level of acceptance. The club has responded by expanding the number of teams it fields. Hence, it connects with more people as it grows. There is more of a sense of belonging as young people are now advancing into regional and state representative squads such as interleague and academy teams and a greater presence in the higher levels.

There is a generation of current club contributors who were only allowed to be educated to a primary school level, many of them only receiving up to year four education. Secondary school was not an option for Indigenous people until the mid-1960s. As a result, the senior members of the community did not have access to education, training, and jobs. Sporting clubs rely heavily on financial support and sponsorships from business leaders, professionals, and commercial organisations. Because of the history, the club does not have access to that sort of support.

The RFNC has driven positive social, cultural, and economic change in Shepparton and the Dungala Kaiela region. It has a proven and acknowledged track record of improving the lives and prospects of the Indigenous community and, in doing so, has managed to impact the wider community.

Investing in Economic Development Economic development is an initiative the Kaiela Institute and RFNC have been investing in through programs such as the Algabonyah Employment Program and Algabonyah Business Development Unit. The programs are described by Paul Briggs (2018b) as:

a program for today, but in the future, there is hope that the community would not need special employment programs to get Aboriginal people jobs, there would be no need for special targets put inside local industries and businesses to enable Aboriginal people to find job opportunities. The current state of employment underpins the 69

fragility of an economy in Aboriginal people’s lives that reinforces the capacity to drive economic empowerment inside our family and community structures.

There are important economic measures such as homeownership that provide the opportunity to negotiate and engage with institutions in a way that is supported by careers and confidence. Those careers will contribute to the economy that is driving the entire region, and Indigenous people cannot be siloed into the public sector intervention space of Indigenous engagement.

The Kaiela Institute’s governance structure is a regional model (Figure 2). It is an investment model that has been assessed by Economics (2018). This report found that the productivity of the region increases by $150 million if the gap in Indigenous employment in the region is closed. That is an investment from the region, not explicitly from Indigenous expenditure but from the whole Goulburn Murray region, to drive strategies that will bring change. In addition to having an economic target, the strategy is driven by a human rights target that aims to impact the quality of life of Indigenous people (Economics, 2018). The key message from the Economics (2018) report is that the Goulburn Murray region will not reach that target of economic parity for Indigenous people unless cultural affirmation, cultural expression, and sustainability of cultural identity are ensured. The strategy towards parity must encompass a shift away from the intervention approach towards a more systematic, strategic policy approach.

Employment When the RFNC first started in 1997, 80% of its community was unemployed, and its members had limited access to jobs (Our Progress Measuring Towards Prosperity For Aboriginal People In The Goulburn Murray Region, 2018). Unemployment continued to be a challenge for many Indigenous community members over the subsequent years, with Indigenous unemployment as a whole averaging around 17.2% compared to only 5% of non-Indigenous people in the region (Goulburn Murray Empowered Communities Report 2017). The club recognised the need to address this disparity and, in 2006, established the Rumba Ripples Employment program. The community within the club is now 80% employed, representing a 21% increase in Indigenous weekly median household income. This improving trend continues today (Algabonyah Score Card 2017). 70

The club recognised that the problem of unemployment was not only an Indigenous issue. Resources were put into working with local government and industry to implement a minimum of 2% Indigenous workforce with 40 local businesses in the region. The Algabonyah Employment Program was launched in 2016 and has facilitated 75 sustainable jobs per year and has met the 2% Indigenous workforce target with local businesses and agencies.

The RFNC also partnered with Catholic Care Sandhurst to run a Parents Next Program. The program supports parents to prepare for further training, education, or upskilling to gain the necessary skills to seek employment by the time their children reach school age. The program operates out of the RFNC offices and caters for non-Indigenous and Indigenous parents.

CULTURE Family and community connectedness are central to the revival and sustainability of Indigenous culture. The community has infrastructure developed in the early 1970s to harness and look after all aspects of the social, cultural, and economic wellbeing of community. The Rumbalara Aboriginal Cooperative (RAC) was the first Indigenous-specific infrastructure for the Indigenous community. It provides a holistic model that caters for almost every aspect of people’s lives, from health (physical and mental), housing, family services, justice, and from birth to early childhood and through to aged care. The RAC was developed to service day-today crises and provide access to important services for the community.

The RFNC is the only place in the region where the Indigenous community can come together, outside of service agreements, and either be an equal or a majority of the population. Cultural identity is evident in this environment through the everyday interactions from the welcoming of new life to the club and the community, the young people talking with the elders or looking up to the senior players, watching, listening, and learning. It is innate and is difficult to measure or to capture. Nevertheless, it is there. Language is taught and reinforced through storytelling and reinforces the importance of cultural heritage.

RFNC Nanyak Wall In the social rooms of the RFNC, the Nanyak Wall takes pride of place. The 14 -metre-long wall holds photographs, symbols, and artefacts of the Yorta Yorta history from settlement through to today. It is a visual presentation of cultural resilience, survival, and strength, giving life to

the stories, the traditions, and the practices of the Yorta Yorta ancestors. It is a reminder to the current generation of those who have come before, and also that there are those who are still to come and that all have a responsibility to sustain and celebrate the unique cultural differences that define who they are.

Dungala Children’s Choir The community has been the beginning of many inspiring activities, none more so than the Dungala Children’s Choir. The choir was established by Yorta Yorta soprano, actor, composer, and playwright Debra Cheetham AO and is made up of predominately Indigenous children, many of them current junior players of the RFNC. Their moving performances keep the traditional songlines alive, sharing culture, singing in traditional language and telling stories of what it is like to be an Indigenous child growing up not only in the region but all over Australia. The intention is to take the choir to the international stage.

Yorta Yorta Language Revitalisation The Kaiela Institute, in partnership with the University of Melbourne, has been working to revitalise the use of Yorta Yorta language, which has been integrated into everyday life as much as possible. Through the partnership, the Kaiela Institute has developed a dictionary for the Yorta Yorta language and an application (app) to support the everyday use of language to communicate and to reinforce cultural identity and to support the revival of Yorta Yorta language for future generations. The Yorta Yorta language revival program has been running for almost ten years. Sustaining Indigenous language and maintaining Indigenous culture is a priority and embedded in policies developed to strengthen and empower rather than the commonly held assumption that Indigenous peoples should abandon their own culture and assimilate into ‘Australian’ culture. Most local Indigenous organisations use Yorta Yorta words, and the Academy of Sport Health and Education has developed its own Indigenous curriculum centred on Yorta Yorta history and language.

Kaiela Arts Kaiela Arts is a local Indigenous art business that promotes Yorta Yorta artists in the Goulburn Murray region. A number of local artists in the space produce art that tells a story that talks to their expressions of culture and their views around life. An exhibition called Footprints in the

Sand displays the work of local artists. This illustrates and brings to life their elders’ accounts and memories of Cummeragunja. Kaiela Arts runs an annual turtle muster for local schools and businesses where clay turtle making kits are available to be purchased from their gallery shop. All the turtles are then displayed in a turtle muster mosaic in June. They also run weekly weaving, art and clay making workshops for any community members to participate.

CHAPTER SUMMARY The Goulburn Murray approach to repositioning value is to try to switch thinking from a cost model to a value and investment model that regional Australia – such as the Goulburn Murray region – would take ownership of. Their role in the disparity of life expectancy and quality of life measures for Indigenous people – and related to the rights of Indigenous people, not only the need and repositioning value – is to showcase and market the sophistication of a culture that is the legacy that was here and operating in this land for tens of thousands of years. The thinking surrounding this approach is to explore how it can add value to the sorts of cultures and economies that are operating in Australia. It is about mainstream and institutions taking ownership of the fact that they are the ones who have to close the gap. When the people only represent 3% of the population, it is difficult to find a platform to shift the thinking of the other 97% (Pearson, 2002).

This chapter provided an overview of the relevant background and context of the research with the history, geographical description, and relevant background of this research. The architecture and design of the community’s regional approach to Indigenous self- determination and empowerment were introduced. The approach focuses on shifting away from the interventions approach that has traditionally targeted change only in the Indigenous community to addressing the broader society’s perception and assumptions about Indigenous people.

The notion of repositioning value is something the Yorta Yorta people have been working on for many years. They continue to explore innovative ways to use data to influence change. Challenging the negative attitudes and stereotypes of the rest of society and the deeply ingrained perception of the value of Indigenous people in the region is essential to improve 73

the overall health and wellbeing of Indigenous peoples living on Yorta Yorta country. The Yorta Yorta is also considering a more collaborative approach that would realise an investment rather than a deficit frame. Recognising part of the responsibility is on mainstream Australia, not just Indigenous people, to restore the social, cultural, economic, emotional, and spiritual wellbeing is core to the approach.

The Kaiela Institute puts forward the community aspirations that form the base for this research as ideas to address the long-term disadvantage experienced by Indigenous people in the Goulburn Murray region. The ideas are intended as discussion points within the wider Indigenous and non-Indigenous community. The emergent model has not yet been taken to the Indigenous community as part of a comprehensive consultation process, and therefore discussions will most likely produce significant modifications.

To identify what is currently known about the Yorta Yorta notion of repositioning value in broader colonial societies, the current position of Indigenous people in Australia and the historical processes that have influenced this position was investigated. The next chapter explores the scope of relevant literature pertaining to this research topic.

CHAPTER THREE – LITERATURE REVIEW

OVERVIEW The four most vilified and racially attacked groups in Australia are Aboriginal people, Asians (ethnic Chinese and South East Asians), Muslims and Jews (Burton et al., 2009, p. 785).

The marginalisation and consequent position of Indigenous people in Australia started with European settlers who were (and for many, still are) convinced of their own superiority (Eckermann, 2010; Moreton-Robinson, 2005; Rowley, 1972b). For this reason, repositioning the value of Indigenous people is a global issue, and improving the overall health, wellbeing and position of First Nation people worldwide should be a human rights priority (Social Justice Report. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Justice Commissioner, 2009). Despite widespread acknowledgment and recognition of the hidden history of colonisation and the impact it continues to have on disadvantage and the deficit position of First Nation people, there has been little progress. First Nation people have had enough of the prejudicial lies that are bestowed on an ill-informed account of the history of these countries (Sutton, 2001).

This chapter presents a review of relevant literature pertaining to the historical and current position of Indigenous Australians to identify the position of Indigenous peoples in Australian society and look for the gaps in knowledge. The literature was searched for challenges to the negative attitudes, stereotypes, literature that changes the conversations from deficit to investment and focuses on building capabilities, social inclusion, and repositioning value. This chapter identifies the current position of Indigenous people in Australia and investigates the historical processes that have influenced that position. The literature search then focused on research that challenges the current position, seeking authors who challenge the negative stereotypes and change the conversations from deficit to investment, particularly around building capabilities, social inclusion, and ultimately repositioning the value of Indigenous people in Australia.

The first section provides an overview of key contributors to the position of Indigenous peoples in broader society: (i) the impact of government policies and interventions towards Indigenous peoples, including colonisation, resistance, adaption, and oppression; (ii) the

social construction of race and racism; (iii) community self-governance, self-determination and capability frameworks in Indigenous communities. The final component of the review identifies relevant literature on prosperity and parity – the factors that influence social positioning, the use of social constructs and challenging attitudes, behaviours and stereotypes to change the conversation and social discourses.

METHODS A variety of information sources were utilised, and both published and unpublished papers were reviewed, including databases and relevant websites using the University of Melbourne’s reference sources. Many unpublished community and government reports deemed relevant were sourced, including databases on Informit and other relevant sites. In addition, consultation with the Kaiela Institute staff, particularly those working in the Empowered Communities and Data Unit, netted several other published reports and unpublished work. Several searches were undertaken looking for specific literature that derived from the background search.

Initially, the university’s platform databases (discovery, Global Health) were the primary source of academic literature across multiple areas, including target group keywords that were linked with a combination of culture, social position, social status, social class, social inclusion, self-determination, and empowerment. The literature search was expanded into electronic databases, including ATSIS, Informit, then references from relevant publications that were identified using the original search terms were followed. The search did not specify years of inclusion because I was interested in the historical trajectory of determining the value and reasoning back from the current position to identify where the deficit position originated. To begin, the literature search was broad across a number of key areas relating to the position of Indigenous Australians, prevailing government policies, and the impact on the subsequent position, which evolved through an iterative process of searching across the identified domains to find literature that was relevant to this project (Barnett-Page & Thomas, 2009). A review of the literature was undertaken to describe the depth of research on repositioning the social, cultural, political, and economic value of Indigenous people in Australia. An investigation of the provision for change and what research has been undertaken around

strength-based approaches in community development and policymaking was also undertaken. The search was narrowed down to exclude research that reaffirms the negative stereotypes and the deficit position to look more specifically for literature that focuses on flipping the lens from a purely deficit perspective to one of investment.

The search identified a body of work from Indigenous scholars informing this line of research; however, the process identified gaps in both research and knowledge, particularly from an Indigenous and regional community perspective. This research project contributes to this body of knowledge and aims to illuminate Indigenous policy paradoxes and shortfalls to inform future research, policy, and practice towards the advancement of Indigenous people’s position in broader society.

PREVAILING GOVERNMENT POLICIES The impact of government and policy relating to Indigenous affairs is well documented (De Hoog et al., 1979; Eckermann, 2010; Lippmann, 1981, 1999; W. Ryan, 1976; Sutton, 2001). The marginalisation and consequential position of Indigenous Australians was established shortly after the arrival of the first fleets and sealed throughout the first century of settlement through dispossession and disease and was then embedded through numerous government policies that sought to seal the fate of the ‘dying race’ (De Hoog et al., 1979; Eckermann, 2010). The colonial period’s policies of segregation, neglect and structural marginalisation all had a significant effect on the position of Indigenous peoples (Attwood, 1989; Broome, 2001; Markus, 1994; Moore, 2014; Reynolds, 1989). The government has established and maintained power and authority over Indigenous peoples through its institutions: ‘The control and regulation of people through practices and knowledges developed within the human sciences and applied to different social institutions, such as schools and prisons’ (Germov & Poole, 2014, p. 59).

The Australian Government’s historical policies towards the country’s First People included the White Australia Policy, which was implemented under the Immigration Restriction Act (1901). This policy primarily focused on preventing people of Asian descent and some other people from immigrating to Australia (De Hoog et al., 1979). The act included Indigenous Australians, who were considered a ‘dying race’ (De Hoog et al., 1979; Eckermann, 2010). The 77

Aboriginal Protection Act in the 1890s was the earliest official and legally sanctioned policy towards Indigenous people. The policy was referred to as ‘smoothing the dying pillow’ (Eckermann, 2010, p. 21). The Aboriginal Protection Act saw the creation of Aboriginal missions, run by Christians, that introduced the rations system for food, clothing, and blankets. The lack of Federal responsibility is a critical issue. The Assimilation Policy in the 1950s, described by Reynolds (1972) as:

The policy of assimilation means that all Aborigines and part-Aborigines are expected to attain the same manner of living as other Australians and to live as members of a single Australian community, enjoying the same rights and privileges, accepting the same customs and influenced by the same beliefs as other Australians (Reynolds, 1972, p. 175). The Assimilation Policy saw the abolishment of many of the missions to supposedly elevate the standards of health, housing, and education (Anderson, 2003; Eckermann, 2010; Germov & Poole, 2014; Reynolds, 1972). Assimilation throughout the late 1960s through to the early 1970s saw Indigenous people moved from the missions or reservations into the fringes of nearby towns. This period was a significant culture shock for Indigenous people and also for the rest of society, many of which were not ready to embrace diversity or prepared to accept Indigenous people into their communities. Many of the federal and state policies were grounded on beliefs of racial superiority that were indifferent to the impact of colonisation and failed to acknowledge the invasion, the process of colonisation, and government interventions in disempowering Indigenous people – an acknowledgement that remains elusive. Without that acknowledgment, it is difficult to challenge the dominant deficit-based narrative around Indigenous people that continues today.

The lack of Federal responsibility is a critical issue when it comes to measuring the progress of Indigenous peoples. There are no acts or pieces of legislation that do this. However, all levels of government are important enablers of change (Moreton-Robinson, 2005). This is especially the case when governments use their legislative and taxing powers. The Victorian State Government has a stated objective of advancing self-determination, and the Commonwealth Government already has procurement policies and coordinates the Close the Gap activities. The Victorian constitution acknowledges Victoria’s Indigenous people as the

‘original custodians of the land’. The following extract from the Victorian State Government website summarises the current status of its approach to the relationship with Indigenous communities in the state:

In February 2016, Aboriginal people in Victoria called on the Victorian Government to negotiate a treaty. Since then, work towards self-determination and treaty has been creating a new relationship between the Victorian Government and the Aboriginal community, a partnership that will empower Indigenous communities to achieve long- term generational change and improved outcomes.

There is evidently a willingness to make fundamental changes to strengthen the relationship between Indigenous communities and governments (Tsey, 2012). Strengthening the trust and relationship requires the establishment of mechanisms that can influence the wider community to see benefits in working with and supporting the Indigenous community from a different perspective. The required change is unlikely to happen by itself. Some form of affirmative action or regulatory powers will be necessary to initially bring people together who would not otherwise do so (Pearson, 2000a).

In the longer term, changing access to wealth-generating mechanisms will be an enabler to reposition how the broader community perceives and values Indigeneity. It will also positively alter how Indigenous people see themselves in the wider community. These outcomes will build hope for a more prosperous future, which should lead to community-wide positive outcomes.

Resistance Resistance and survival have become an integral part of Indigenous people’s lives (Germov & Poole, 2014; Lippmann, 1999; Peters-Little, 2001). The resistance grew in the early 1960s when the Indigenous civil rights movement was rising through the courage and determination of Indigenous leaders such as Charles Perkins and Bill Onus. Attwood (2003) identifies these two men as leaders advocating for Indigenous Australians to be recognised as citizens in the 1967 referendum. Onus was the Victorian Campaign State Director for the 1967 referendum. In his speech calling for Indigenous people to be recognised as citizens of Australia as a fundamental human right, he voiced his frustration and disbelief in the treatment of his people: In this year of our Lord, nineteen hundred and sixty seven we cannot help but wonder 79

why it has taken the White Australians just on 200 years to recognise us as a race of people (Attwood, 2003, p. 51).

Gough Whitlam became Prime Minister in 1972 and abolished the Assimilation Act, and replaced it with the Self-Determination Act (Eckermann, 2010; Sutton, 2001). Self- Determination saw the development of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission (ATSIC). ATSIC was established to give Indigenous people an avenue to participate in developing and implementing policies that affected them (Sutton, 2001). Lippmann provides a concise summary of the relationship between Black and White Australian and the story of resistance, from the first encounters between traditional owners on the east coast of Australia through to land rights, health, education, and the renaissance of Indigeneity in culture and arts (Lippmann, 1999).

The courage and determination over many generations to sustain Indigenous culture and practice despite openly oppressive policies and practices of successive government interventions are remarkable (Langton, 2010). Even braver are those who Langton and Loss say, ‘raised their objections to the inequity and cruelty of the administration of Aboriginal Affairs (2010, p. 345), those who not only survived but found the courage to challenge the discriminatory laws, legislation, and treatment towards Indigenous peoples and fight for equality. Lippmann describes the situation through the interpretation of the play ‘Munjong’, meaning ‘hopeless’. ‘People under permanent siege grappling with the problems of survival, without losing hope or falling into bitterness of self-pity, epitomising the undaunted resistance which Aborigines have so frequently displayed’ (Lippmann, 1999, p. 163).

Adaption Throughout subsequent generations, Indigenous peoples have survived because of their ability to adapt to the ever-changing physical, social, cultural, economic, and political environment. Adaption ‘is to do perfectly for some objective standpoint: it is to do as well as possible under the circumstances, which may not turn out very well at all’ (Eckermann, 2010, p. 3). When the government policy changed to Self-Determination in 1972 (Will Sanders, 2002), the development of infrastructure in Indigenous communities commenced. Some of the lands initially occupied by Indigenous groups were handed back, and ACCOs were 80

established (Fagan, 1984; G. Foley, 1982). The infrastructure measures were mainly to address the Indigenous crisis; however, the significant investment and change in Indigenous policy development saw the establishment of many essential Indigenous-specific services, including health services, legal services, and childcare services.

Although there was a significant level of government investment and infrastructure specific to Indigenous servicing throughout the 1970s, almost five decades later, there has been relatively little change, and the problems remain very much the same (Sutton, 2011). The Indigenous population is still experiencing low rates of educational attainment, high rates of unemployment, high numbers of children in out of home care, and Indigenous people are still over-represented in the justice system and prisons in comparison to the broader society (Lippmann, 1999; Moore, 2014; Nilan, Julian, & Germov, 2007). Having endured more than 200 years of abuse that has resulted in the unequal position of Indigenous peoples in Australian society, it is not surprising governments have not found a way to impact change, to measure relevant change, or influence patterns of behaviours and affect the attitudes and beliefs about Indigenous Australians. Pedersen, Paradies, and Barndon (2015) suggest the policy of assimilation continues, describing it as ‘assimilationist’, meaning ‘conforming to and adopting mainstream culture’. Indigenous people have been adapting to and conforming to mainstream culture and its rules and regulations since colonisation.

Oppression It is often argued that while the government's intention may be inclusionary, policies and practices have been exclusionary (Eckermann, 2010; Moore, 2014). The exclusion is an indication of the power of colonisers; the implication is valid with respect to policies affecting Indigenous Australians. (Moore, 2014, p. 124) argues ‘the combined processes of governance act to deny Indigenous peoples the potential of being both Indigenous and Australian, being different and belonging. They maintain Aborigines’ marginality’. By the year 2000, the focus for government policy towards Indigenous people shifted to ‘social inclusion’. The concept of social inclusion has its roots in social policy in Australia (Moore, 2014; Robbins, 2015). At that time: The Australian Government’s vision of a socially inclusive society is one in which all

Australians feel valued and have the opportunity to participate fully in the life of our society. (Silver, 2010, p. 184)

However, many authors writing about social inclusion continue to find the same underlying cause of concern: that the social inclusion approach overlooks the priorities and preferences of Indigenous communities. They continue to interpret inclusion in ways that assert the cultural paradigm of non-Indigenous Australians (Robbins, 2015; Rowley, 1972a). The government developed and communicated the process; it maintains the power imbalance through hierarchical, non-transparent, and non-consultative processes and maintains a detrimental precedent for working with Indigenous communities.

Furthermore, policymakers to date have primarily focused on programs and interventions that target change in individuals (Sutton, 2001). If these are not supported by efforts to empower, strengthen culture and community, and remove cultural barriers to Indigenous education, employment, and participation in the broader society, they are destined to fail (Anderson et al., 2007). The potential long-term outcome of the repositioning value approach is improved health and social outcomes for the Indigenous community based on an affirmation of culture.

Sutton (2001, p. 126) contends policy is a key enabler for significant change, stating that it is ‘arguable that policy, unlike history, is something we can change, and policy, unlike culture, is something that can be changed over a short period’. The Australian government has imposed years of failed paternalistic policy approaches on Indigenous affairs. Historical and current policy and practice in Indigenous affairs, as understood by federal and state governments in Australia, have predominately been designed, developed, and implemented by colonial government structures. Many community-developed initiatives have shown great success; however, many of the Indigenous specific policies and interventions have been limited to improving the prevailing deficit, welfare-based, benevolent, community service model. They are based on Indigenous Australians being categorised as unequivocally disadvantaged (Lewis, 2011).

RACE AND RACISM Australian Natives are not a primitive people but a people living in primitive conditions. They are entitled to a better deal than they are receiving from white people. If given the opportunity they could ‘fly high’ but they have been denied their rights by being kept a race apart. (W. R. Atkinson, 2010, p. 325)

Fundamentally understanding the position of Indigenous peoples within the broader Australian society requires a deep understanding of the history and the way that history continues to impact subsequent generations of Indigenous peoples. The Australian continent was colonised on the premise of scientific and institutional racism. Eckermann (2010, p. 9) argues that scientific racism ‘became the basis of and justification for a number of stereotypes about Indigenous people’, and institutional racism as:

manifest in the laws, norms and regulations that maintain dominance of one group over another. It is covert and relatively subtle; it originates in the operation of essential and respected forces in society and is consequently accepted. Because it originates within the society’s legal, political and economic system, is sanctioned by the power group in the society and at least tacitly accepted by the powerless, it receives very little public condemnation. (Eckermann, 2010, p. 17).

Despite decades of government interventions, Indigenous peoples continue to experience significant inequalities (Lippmann, 1999; Nilan et al., 2007) that can be traced back to the impact of social, cultural, economic, and political exclusion, founded on the belief that Indigenous people are biologically inferior to all other Australians. Deeply ingrained beliefs and attitudes towards Indigenous peoples are underpinned by the social construction of race and racism and constructed through privilege:

Racism, as a particular form of privilege/oppression, exists in a dialectical relationship with anti-racism, both of which depend on the concept of racialization, which is a societal system wherein actors are divided into 'races'. 'Race' can be thought of as a social construct that encompasses the notion of essentialized innate difference based on phenotype, ancestry and/or culture, and that intersects in complex ways with other forms of privilege/oppression. (Y. Paradies, 2006)

Race and racism form the foundation that framed the relationship between Indigenous and non-Indigenous peoples. Although race has no scientific foundation, it continues to be used

as a social category according to physical differences (McCann-Mortimer, Augoustinos, & LeCouteur, 2004; Nilan et al., 2007).

Racism is recognised as a significant problem in Australia (Bourke et al., 2017; Dunn, Forrest, Burnley, & McDonald, 2004; Habtegiorgis, Paradies, & Dunn, 2014). Although known for multiculturalism, there is a mentality that does not value or embrace cultural differences, and experiences of racism are well documented. Racism is described as:

an overt rejection of other groups and their members, as hostile and malevolent as underpinned by a belief in the superiority of one’s own group over others, and as a feature of individuals. (P. Dudgeon et al., 2010).

The underlying racism has many causes that have eroded the community's confidence, hope, and opportunities (Dunn et al., 2004; Yin Paradies & Cunningham, 2009). Indigenous peoples continue to experience the intergenerational impacts of colonisation and dispossession. A rights-based approach should be engaged that promotes local Indigenous culture and acknowledges the rights of Indigenous people to participate equally in the prosperity of the region. This encompasses the right for minority groups, including First Peoples, to live free from racism, prejudices, and discrimination, as Hunt (2005, p. 23) explains:

to restore capacity to our people is to let us be responsible for our own future... we have had 40 to 60,000 years of survival and capacity! The problem is our capacity has been eroded and diminished... the concept of capacity building is the idea that Aboriginal people are innately deficient, or incapable, or lacking... there is a danger of fostering a hidden bureaucratic racism and prejudice against our people... our people do have skills, knowledge and experience.

To merely acknowledge its existence and to accept it is not the only option. Pearson argues that history cannot inhibit future aspirations, and the pursuit of excellence and achievements must be encouraged.

The wider Australian culture generates this outlook of pity and places us in the position of being victims. This is not at all a strong outlook for our people and we must avoid internalising this idea that racism is something that is capable of defeating us. We have to find a resilience to withstand racism while not giving into it ((Pearson, 2000a, p. 6).

Social Construct of White Privilege Addressing issues of White privilege has proved to be an uncomfortable and somewhat hard process (Haggis, 2004). Race and racial inequalities have long been an interest of social researchers. However, most have failed to acknowledge the social construction of both Indigenous and colonial race relations (Perea, 1997), especially concerning white supremacy, racism, and racial inequality (Bonilla-Silva, 2012).

Germov and Poole (2007, p. 288) suggest the study of race relations has expanded from solely focusing on the ‘Black other’ to investigate power, identity, and the difference between Indigenous and non-Indigenous populations described as ‘whiteness studies’ meaning, ‘the invisibility and unquestioned norm of white people’s dominance and privilege compared to non-white people in societies like Australia’. These perspectives hold that it is not up to Indigenous peoples to deconstruct racism, but those who created it to firstly recognise the great power imbalance and acknowledge the unequal power inherent in the relationships between Indigenous and non-Indigenous peoples. The acknowledgement requires a significant shift in the construction of the legal and political systems that were purposely built to sustain White power and privilege by oppressing and further marginalising Indigenous peoples (Walter & Moreton-Robinson, 2009).

Indigenous scholar Aileen Moreton-Robinson has made a significant contribution to research and writing in Indigenous studies. As a highly distinguished writer, author and researcher (Aileen, 2015; Moreton-Robinson, 2000, 2005, 2008; Robinson, Moreton-Robinson, & Walter, 2011; Walter & Moreton-Robinson, 2009), she has provided a different lens through which to think about and view the challenges for Indigenous Australians. Moreton-Robinson writes about the impact of the domination of White power and privilege. In her paper titled ‘Patriarchal Whiteness, Self-Determination and Indigenous Women: The Invisibility of Structural Privilege and the Visibility of Oppression’, Moreton-Robinson (2005, p. 63) argues:

White race privilege in Australia is based on theft of our lands, the murder of our people and the use of our slave labour. Colonisation and dominance propelled by an ideology of white racial superiority benefited white people in that the nation-state conferred certain privileges and rights on white people through its systems of governance and culture. 85

This paper focuses on how race and gender hinder the quest for self-determination, particularly for Indigenous peoples, because of patriarchal whiteness.

Yin Paradies (2005) highlights the importance of non-Indigenous peoples becoming aware of and understanding their own emotional regulation, motivation, stereotyping, prejudice/bias, and what they can do to reduce and respond to racism. This requires the acknowledgement and examination of their own complicity in racial identity, biases, and prejudices. Understanding the unique position of power and privilege and the difference affirmative action and diversity (e.g., similarities between and differences within groups) and acknowledging the fact that the deconstruction of race, racism or White privilege is not a responsibility of Indigenous people, it is the change that needs to happen.

INDIGENOUS GOVERNANCE A key component of the Yorta Yorta prosperity plan is the proposal for a regional self- governance framework. Therefore, the literature search focused on Indigenous-specific governance and organisational capacity building and found numerous studies on the issues and suggestions on improving Indigenous governance in communities. There was a small archive on Indigenous governance from an Indigenous leadership position and less on regional self-governance. The review found some literature from a strength-based perspective that focused on successful Indigenous community governance, building capacity, leadership, and autonomy.

With the establishment of Indigenous organisations since the 1970s, the communities have been grappling with community governance across Australia. There has also been a continuous growth of ACCOs that reflects and fosters a resurgence in Indigenous culture and identity. These organisations are an essential component of contemporary Indigenous societies, and they contribute socially, politically, and economically to the broader society (Tynan, 2007). Communities are looking for a more sophisticated approach to building their prosperity and economic opportunities by strengthening relationships both internally and within the broader society. Part of that is envisioning a better future through regional self- governance and nation building. Community governance is an enabler for self-determination. It provides an opportunity for the community to set its own priorities and have a voice in the 86

organisational and community policy and organisational agenda and have input into government policy and the political landscape at all levels (Limerick, 2009).

Governance Structure in Indigenous Communities ‘Good governance’ is described as the key to sustainability and effective service delivery that meets the community's needs while building internal capacity (Bauman, Smith, Quiggin, Keller, & Drieberg, 2015; Dodson & Smith, 2003). Although Indigenous organisations are predominately community controlled and owned, they generally lack sufficient decision- making power to govern successfully (Tsey, 2012) because they still rely heavily on the government for funding. Since the demolition of ATSIC, there has been a lack of adequate support for community organisations to grow these institutions beyond crisis intervention. The organisations struggle with the colonial governance structures that are mandated to meet the bureaucratic requirements aligned with accessing government funding. This results in a constant transitioning between the two cultural interfaces. It is difficult to challenge non- Indigenous systems that are predominately established to protect their interest and assumed superiority (Limerick, 2009).

Despite the limitations imposed on Indigenous organisations, communities have been innovative in their approach to effectively reconcile two sometimes competing cultures (Hunt, Smith, Garling, & Sanders, 2008). The current resourcing that goes into Indigenous organisations is rarely enough to make substantial change as it is not sustainable. The government processes for applying and reporting funding are too rigid. The bureaucracy under which Indigenous governance bodies operate has not been helpful to build capacity to achieve financial sustainability. For example, one study by Brigg and Curth-Bibb (2017, p. 199) found the Aboriginal Community Controlled Health sector

…suffers from governance challenges that a combination of Settler-state dominance of governance arrangements and inadequate conceptualisation of governance in the sector have led to the risk of ‘controlled communities’ – either quasi-government control of organisations or the control of individual ACCHSs by a small cohort of members. In response, we deploy a political rather than technical approach to governance to consider the contested and intercultural nature of ACCHSs governance alongside recent governance initiatives in Southeast Queensland that signal the value of disaggregating and delineating different forms of governance in the sector. 87

Indigenous governance generally refers to an elected member from within the community who acts and makes decisions on behalf of the community for ACCOs. The boards usually comprise a majority of Indigenous members with one or two non-identified positions allowed for specific skills. Tsey (2012, p. 3) defines governance as ‘evolving processes, relationships, institutions and structures by which a group of people, community or society organise themselves collectively to achieve things that matter to them’. Indigenous governance is important to maintain effective control and decision-making for Indigenous communities (Limerick & Yeatman, 2008; Tonkinson, Howard, Berndt, & Berndt, 1990). Having identified boards made up of Indigenous people for organisations provides opportunities for community members to strengthen their leadership skills and the capacity of all community members (Hunt, 2006). Maintaining the community control of these organisations is of significant importance to developing and delivering appropriate services to improve the overall health, wellbeing, and quality of life for Indigenous peoples (Will Sanders, 2004).

From a governance perspective, Limerick (2009) argues the clear implication of Australian anthropologists’ work is that Western models of representative councils are doomed to fail because of their underlying incompatibility with Aboriginal norms and values about governance. Limerick and Yeatman (2008) agree there is a need to develop new community governance models that effectively incorporate elements of traditional Indigenous governance with Western models.

A significant study on Indigenous community governance undertaken by the Centre for Aboriginal Economic Policy Research (CAEPR), the Australian National University (ANU), and Reconciliation Australia (RA) in 2004, along with participating organisations and leaders (Hunt, 2007; Hunt et al., 2008; Will Sanders, 2008) aimed to ‘build and sustain effective governance in rural, remote and urban Indigenous Communities’ (D. Smith, 2005). The authors acknowledge the contestation between government and Indigenous communities to reach agreement on an Indigenous-specific governance framework that can successfully integrate the values and aspirations of the community and still meet the requirements of governments. One of the recommendations from this study acknowledges the importance of government, asserting that effective governance must be embedded in policy and supported by sufficient

funding (Hunt et al., 2008). Strengthening and investing in the capacity of Indigenous leaders working in Indigenous organisations will lead to an improvement in community governance. Anderson and Sanders (1996, p. 4) contend that the establishment of ACCOs was a crucial institutional investment towards the politics of self-determination for Indigenous peoples.

The Ngarrindjeri people in southern South Australia are among the ten Empowered Communities (EC) across Australia facilitating a Regional Placed-Based Development Strategy to rethink regional governance in Indigenous communities. They have also been working towards a Ngarrindjeri Regional Authority (NRA). S. Hemming and D. Rigney (2008, p. 758) present the Ngarrindjeri experiences with natural resource and cultural heritage management to further reflect upon the relationship between globalization, governance, economic development, sustaining 'culture' and Indigenous well-being. Like the Yorta Yorta, the Ngarrindjeri leaders are looking for a way to disrupt the colonialist structures and implement a plan that activates the community’s aspirations and priorities, including the sustainability of identity and culture. At the time, the Ngarrindjeri were in the process of seeking financial support to progress their regional authority plan.

Similarly, the optimism in Indigenous communities to self-determine through governance is fortifying different forms, and another example is provided by Poelina (2020, p. 153), who writes about the Kimberley Indigenous people story that she describes as promoting remote Aboriginal people’s wellbeing through a co-operative regional earth-centred governance model. Illustrating how one remote community incorporates elements of their cultural traditions, including kinship, ceremonies, knowledge-making and practice, into their policies and practices and are investing in a different approach that supports self-determination and empowerment of their people. Asserting that:

As Indigenous people living in this region of Australia, we are reframing development policy towards an earth-centred regional governance approach. We are exploring new ways of doing business by asserting our Indigenous and human rights and by engaging with governments and other stakeholders as equal partners. We are advocating that sustainable life of the river requires respect for the cultural and environmental values of the diverse Indigenous peoples along the river. We believe sustainability of the River and the Traditional Owners transition to resilience and cultural wellbeing requires

investment to strengthen their capacity to shift from a pedagogy of oppression towards a pedagogy of hope and freedom. (Poelina, 2020, p. 174)

While the review specifically sought literature on strengthening Indigenous governance and organisational development in communities, mostly descriptive research was found. The existing literature identifies many ‘problems’ with Indigenous community governance and the current framework that most Indigenous communities operate under through their organisations. A new framework that recognises and incorporates elements of both traditional Indigenous governance and Western models is necessary (Hunt et al., 2008; Merlan, 1998). However, as Dodson (2008, p. xix) points out, ‘In confronting the challenges posed in getting governance right we should not lose sight of the successful models of governance that Indigenous peoples and their organisations and communities are already employing’. Existing literature outlines the aspirations and challenges of Indigenous communities' attempts to self-determination by investing in new governance models. The challenges and successes already outlined in existing literature vary from community to community. Still, many reveal similar struggles to assert their rights to self-determine and fit in with state and national approaches to self-determination while maintaining elements of culture and community at heart. The similarities found in the literature for regional Indigenous communities trying different approaches are a strong indicator of Indigenous movement and the hope communities have to do and be better. It is clear affirming Indigenous aspirations and vision for regional governance is on the agenda and pushing for Indigenous communities to be at the forefront of political decision making.

SELF-DETERMINATION AND CAPABILITY FRAMEWORKS Self-determination is described by Behrendt, Porter, and Vivian (2010, p. 3) as:

the most fundamental of all human rights and is grounded in the idea that people are entitled to control their own destiny. It has been described by the United Nations Human Rights Committee as the essential condition for the effective guarantee and observance of individual human rights and for the promotion and strengthening of those rights.

Literature concerning self-determination and strength-based capabilities frameworks found that descriptive research provided many recommendations for what needs to be done to

address the problems. However, research assessing the successes of regional community- based approaches to self-determination and strength-based capabilities are limited.

Self-determination was a formal government policy between 1972 and 1996. Although many would argue the actual policy was more rhetoric than real (Eckermann, 2010; Maddison, 2009; Trudgen, 2000), the purpose of self-determination was to raise the status of Indigenous Australians (Anderson & Sanders, 1996). The policy stemmed from the belief that Indigenous people ‘should be in control of efforts to improve their lives, ultimately making state intervention redundant’ (Kowal, 2011). However, to date, there has not been a government that has been willing to acknowledge and challenge the basis on which the country was settled and afford Indigenous Australians their rightful place in Australian society (Trudgen, 2000).

The prevailing government policies have not released governments’ promises of self- determination and instead further restricted Indigenous people’s social, cultural, economic and political autonomy (Trudgen, 2000). Communities have been left to struggle with limited resources and tools to navigate the imposed policies (Goulburn Murray Empowered Communities Report 2017). What was disguised as hope to build a better future became a mixture of poverty and disadvantage, with frustrated leaders caught up in day-to-day crises and interventions with no time to contemplate an exit strategy to get off merry-go-round.

Indigenous legal academic and writer Behrendt has published several papers about Indigenous self-determination (Behrendt, 2001; Behrendt, 2012, 2013; Behrendt et al., 2010). Behrendt believes government can play a crucial role in alleviating the ‘lack of compassion towards Indigenous peoples’. However, the failed policies and political vision for the advancement of Indigenous affairs in Australia is everyone’s responsibility. Behrendt (2002, p. 150) argues that:

Regional agreements between government and communities that grant powers similar to that of local councils could also be a model that would allow power to be concentrated in a local community by providing Aboriginal communities with a base from which to negotiate with government and industry over a wide range of issues,

including land title and management, resource exploitation, environmental control and the delivery of services.

The growth of Indigenous organisations since the 1970s has been substantial (Morley, 2015). Aboriginal community controlled organisations have played leading roles in building services that provide holistic servicing in a range of areas, including health, housing, justice, community, and welfare (Morley, 2015; Will Sanders, 2002; Tsey, 2012). The government- provided resources and support that go into these important initiatives are imperative for the continuation of community control, ownership, and management (Hoffmann et al., 2012). However, organisations are primarily focused on crisis interventions. The agenda in service delivery for the community is still set by the government and addresses government priorities. Indigenous organisations have limited ability to undertake discretionary activities, including long term planning and sustainability. They rarely have free funds or resources (Goulburn Murray Empowered Communities Report 2017).

In most cases, the only source of financial support is via intervention programs (Goulburn Murray Empowered Communities Report 2017), and there is little capacity for Indigenous organisations to participate in the broader economy. The community believes that by individuals and organisations sharing resources and decision making, the community’s power to vary their bargaining positions will be strengthened (Goulburn Murray Empowered Communities Report 2017). Indigenous organisations often draw from the same bucket of government funding, which has contributed to internal competitiveness between the community organisations.

Pearson’s book, Our Right to Take Responsibility, discusses the consequences of passive welfare and government policy on creating what he describes as ‘social dissolution’. He argues that it is time to:

Face up to the fact that, after 30 years and three decades of considerable investment and commitment by the Australian people to the position of indigenous peoples, we have not really made much progress. (Pearson, 2000a, p. 2).

Pearson (2000a) further argues that empowerment or repositioning value is not something that can be given, it has to be achieved, and individuals and groups can only be empowered

when they can make their own decisions, to determine their own fate, and when they have the resources to support those decisions. There is a challenge to government and communities to propose an alternative model (Hoffmann et al., 2012). The collective work of eight Indigenous regions across Australia has put together a proposal that seeks support for a regional self-governance model (Empowered Communities: Empowered People Design Report, 2015). This includes an overhaul of current governance structures and funding methods that they believe will break down the current barriers and organisational silos, leading to better collaboration both internally and externally to work cohesively towards a shared agenda beyond the day-to-day intervention and ‘disadvantage’ label. Part of the community proposal is reimagining a future where Indigenous people can participate and contribute to the wider society with parity, reciprocity and respect.

Currently, community organisations struggle with economic sustainability (Hoffmann et al., 2012; Morley, 2015). There is a challenge for governments to find a more cost-effective way for organisations to be financially dependent on government. The current structure has actively kept community organisations dependent on problematic funding that is deficit focused and limits the ability to devise and implement Indigenous agendas. Furthermore, the current funding model is based on government priorities and continues the cycle of disadvantage. The funding is not enough to establish any substantial or long-term change (Morley, 2015).

From an Indigenous perspective, the nation of Australia was founded on abysmal injustice. The social, cultural, spiritual, and economic futures of Indigenous peoples were not a priority for the colonisers who established societies specific to their needs (Lewis, 2011). Many Indigenous scholars write about Indigenous self-determination either from a historical, political, social, or aspirational position. This thesis began with a quote from Jack Patten (1938), who advocated for Indigenous peoples' rights.

Jackie Huggins, the former Co-Chair of Reconciliation Australia, a National Council member for Aboriginal Reconciliation, and the AIATSIS Council, is a pioneering Indigenous academic. She was awarded a Member of the Order of Australia (AM) in 2001 for her contribution to Indigenous social justice. Huggins has made a significant contribution to the academy of 93

Indigenous community, history, politics, and identity. In her book, Sistergirl, she talks about the value of traditions and oral history and the impact of government policy on Indigenous Australians (Huggins, 1998). Fletcher (1994) published a book outlining the results from a two-day Indigenous governance conference in Townsville in 1993. Some of the most prominent Indigenous and non- Indigenous scholars working on Indigenous strategies towards self-determination and federalism came together to produce this resource. The list of influential contributors included: Professor Marcia Langton, Michael Mansell, Louis O’Donoghue, Noel Pearson, Charles Perkins, and Henry Reynolds. All are well-known Indigenous leaders who have invested countless hours over many decades for the betterment of Indigenous people. The book is organised into seven parts that focus on Indigenous self-determination, reconciliation, constitutionalism, self-government, sovereignty and economic development (Fletcher, 1994, p. xi). Together, they present a succinct story of the history, strengths, challenges, and vision with hope of building the political, social, cultural, and economic opinion of Indigenous peoples in Australia.

Indigenous lawyer, political activist, and social commentator Noel Pearson has been a passionate and somewhat contentious advocate for a more strategic approach to Indigenous disadvantage. Notably, in his work on passive welfare, Pearson (2000b) argues the current approach to the distribution of government funds to Indigenous people is profoundly adverse to health and quality of life. Pearson is also one of the key leaders working nationally on the empowered communities model, which is discussed in more detail under prosperity and parity below. Pearson describes self-determination as not just a rights-based issue for the government to relinquish power and control. He argues Indigenous communities need to assume responsibility and accountability and take charge of important matters to their future sustainability and well-being. Pearson suggests it is imperative to prioritise the social, economic, and political position:

It is hard work but we have to get on top of our predicaments economically, socially, politically. It is a matter of us taking charge. These things are not just delivered by governments, they are assumed by people who take charge of their lives and take responsibility for their own people and for their own direction. So the true meaning of 94

self-determination is not just a rights-based thing, it is a responsibility based thing. (Pearson, 2000a, p. 5)

However, Lewis (2011, p. 6) argues that rights and responsibilities are the same thing:

The false dichotomy that is often made between ‘right’ and ‘responsibility’ in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander affairs needs to be replaced by an understanding of how ‘rights’ and ‘responsibility’ are essentially two sides of the same coin.

This argument centres on the view that without governments relinquishing powers and asserting the right to self-determination, Indigenous communities cannot begin to assume responsibility and that the responsibility cannot rest alone on the Indigenous community to fix the damage done as a result of the governments’ past policies. The two have to work hand in hand. Lewis’s paper highlights the injustice towards Indigenous peoples since colonisation, and that government interventions target changes in Indigenous people to take responsibility but do not submit the power and rights to allow the change to happen.

Moreton-Robinson is known internationally for her work on feminism, whiteness and critical Indigenous studies. Moreton-Robinson (2005) maintains that responsibility sits with governance or institutional power, suggesting that self-determination for Indigenous women entails governance with political and economic power in the hands of Indigenous communities. Furthermore, she states that the connection between White privilege and institutions denies the ways in which whiteness confers upon inequality based on race and therefore maintains the status quo through systemic racism. Issues of income inequality for Indigenous people extend beyond the seemingly simple making and management of money; they are intertwined within the realms of power, privilege and class. Where one is situated on the social scale in society will depend on what access they have to power, privilege, and status. Most sociologists agree that the ordering of class is based on the ‘unequal distribution of income and wealth’ (Eckermann, 2010; Kelsall, Kelsall, & Chisholm, 1984, p. 25). If this is considered from the point of view of a capitalist society, exclusion, racism, and discrimination are tools defining the class system. Indigenous Australians have a well-documented history of experiencing discrimination, exclusion, institutional discrimination, and systemic bias that has limited economic power, income, and wealth. Employment and (Western) education are

relatively new experiences in comparison to the rest of society. However, Indigenous people are still expected to navigate these systems from the extreme margins.

Lewis (2011) agrees the position of Indigenous people in society is reliant on non-Indigenous people acknowledging their contribution to the problem. Lewis calls for the nation to challenge institutional racism and structural bias that has a significant impact on the progression of Indigenous Australians: ‘a human rights approach is foundational for addressing Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples’ disadvantage, as it forms a basis for empowerment and responsible action. The issue of human rights is not merely theoretical. It has practical ramifications’ (p 8).

Exclusion policies and government practices have resulted in the marginalisation and position of Indigenous peoples within broader society.

For instance, the Australian state has gained control of Aboriginal inclusion via a singular, bounded category and Aboriginal ideal type. However, the implication is also limited in their respect. Aborigines are abject but also agents in their relationship with the wider society. Their politics contributes to the construction of the very category and type that governs them, and presses individuals to resist state inclusionary efforts. Aboriginal political elites police the performance of an Aboriginality dominated by notions of difference and resistance. The combined processes of governance act to deny Aborigines the potential of being both Aboriginal and Australian, being different and belonging. They maintain Aborigines’ marginality. (Moore, 2014, p. 124)

Moore concludes that two questions remain on how to address Indigenous disadvantage. They are related to how Indigeneity can be conceived and how policy can be construed in a way that acknowledges the complexities of being Indigenous. He maintains that the answers to both questions lie in greater inclusion of Indigenous peoples into broader society. There has been substantial progress with mainstream institutional structures and practices to better cater to Indigenous needs. However, Moore argues that these frameworks have helped Aboriginal capacity to engage with the wider society and have provided a platform for a shift which has seen more ‘equitable access to education, health, housing and employment and a growing urban middle class’ (Moore, 2014, p. 127).

According to Overcoming Indigenous disadvantage: key indicators 2009, p. 8), areas that have worked in terms of Indigenous community development are:

• Cooperative approaches between Indigenous people and government • Community involvement in program design and decision making – a bottom- up rather than the top-down approach • Good governance – at organisation, community and government levels • Ongoing government support – including human, financial and physical resources. There is generally a lack of coordination and communications between governments, community and broader society that has hindered any substantial progress in this area. There is an opportunity to collaborate and work together to find a way to achieve the aspirations of Indigenous communities to self-determine. This would require all levels of government and community to work together with all relevant parties to assume accountability and responsibility for the transition.

PROSPERITY AND PARITY The Australian government has neglected Australia’s First People since inception. The discriminatory policies have massacred, degraded, and exploited Indigenous people for more than two centuries (De Hoog et al., 1979; Lippmann, 1991; W. Ryan, 1976; Sutton, 2001). Governments have a responsibility to fix this by investing in programs and organisations that affirm cultural identity rather than deny it. Indigenous people cannot be empowered to prosper and achieve parity until they feel their cultural identity, heritage, language, spirituality, and ways of being are accepted, celebrated, and affirmed on an equal level to the broader Australian culture.

Ensuring public investment and procurement benefits Indigenous people and the broader community means thinking about Indigenous development as a ‘prosperity overlay’ (Goulburn Murray Empowered Communities Report 2017) over broader regional development, rather than considering Indigenous development as a separate program. The prosperity and parity proposition is about challenging the commonly held assumptions that Indigenous people should abandon their own culture and assimilate into ‘Australian’ culture

(Tatz, 1982; Tynan, 2007) and address structural racism and unconscious bias through public policy.

From an Indigenous perspective, it is often argued that government rhetoric lacks respectful, collaborative, inclusionary policies and practices, resulting in the exclusion of Indigenous peoples from key decision making. The process has maintained a power imbalance that was produced upon European arrival on the eastern shores. Indigenous people have become implicit in their relationship with the broader community. The lack of opportunity, power, and control contribute significantly to the deficit narrative that now dictates their position in Australian society. The lack of political control that governs their existence maintains the marginalisation of Indigenous people in the social, cultural, economic, and political arenas (Moore, 2014).

Robbins (2015, p. 171) contends ‘the concept of social inclusion has been influential in shaping many aspects of social policy in Australia over the past decade’. He argues that the disparity between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians is an urgent matter of social justice that must be addressed in policy and that Inclusion policies must engage with Indigenous communities to achieve an appropriate form of social inclusion policy to be developed based on the priorities of Indigenous peoples.

The core issue inhibiting any long term, sustainable change to the position of Indigenous peoples within the broader community is that the non-Indigenous community does not see any social, cultural, economic, or political value in Indigenous peoples (Goulburn Murray Empowered Communities Report 2017). Therefore, consciously or otherwise, opportunities for Indigenous people are generally limited, and Indigenous families have not been able to share in the wealth of the nation. Racism continues to be subtle but widely experienced by Indigenous peoples (Kairuz, Casanelia, Bennett-Brook, Coombes, & Yadav, 2020). Without changes to the social dynamics of the region, the community will never become ‘equal’ to the rest of society. ‘Repositioning value’ is about developing a plan to fundamentally change relationships between Indigenous and non-Indigenous communities’ businesses, agencies and government.

The concepts of empowerment and community capacity building are important strategies for improving disparities (Tsey, Harvey, Gibson, & Pearson, 2009). However, there is little empirical evidence from an Indigenous perspective on how that can be developed, implemented, and evaluated in Indigenous communities.

Empowered Communities Repositioning value is a concept that has come from the collaboration of some of Australia’s most prominent and influential Indigenous leaders. It originates from the empowered communities model of Indigenous empowerment (Goulburn Murray Empowered Communities Report 2017). In an interview on ABC’s Lateline, community leader Andrea Mason explained:

Back in 2013, around 90 leaders came together. We represented Aboriginal communities across the metropolitan, regional and remote areas of Australia. Really because we were all organisations interested in creating or furthering ideas to create safer, prosperous and more dynamic communities. And so the beginning of EC [empowered communities] was around finding common ground across a range of Aboriginal organisations and leaders and that has been the basis of the design of the Empowered Communities model (Alberici, 2015).

The notion of prosperity on country and repositioning value has its roots in empowered communities and the collective work of the eight Indigenous communities and their pursuit of different strategies to address the long-term disadvantage experienced by the country’s original inhabitants. While it is unique to each region, the model has an overarching concept that challenges everyone to take ownership of the poor outcomes for Indigenous peoples. It has the most exciting and aspirational ideas to influence policy if a collaborative approach can be achieved on all levels. The ten regions include urban, regional and remote communities of:

• Cape York, Queensland • Central Coast, New South Wales • East Kimberley, Western Australia • Goulburn-Murray, Victoria • Inner Sydney, New South Wales • Ngaanyatjarra Pitjantjatjara Yankunytjatjara (NPY) Lands, Central Australia • North East Arnhem Land (NEAL), Northern Territory

• West Kimberley, Western Australia • Lower River Murray, Lakes and Coorong, SA • Far West Coast, SA ("Empowered Communities," 2018).

The empowered communities’ vision is to see a substantial change that will result in better outcomes for Indigenous children:

We want for our children the same opportunities and choices other Australians expect for their children. We want them to succeed in mainstream Australia, achieving educational success, prospering in the economy and living long, healthy lives. We want them to retain their distinct cultures, languages and identities as peoples and to be recognised as Indigenous Australians. (Empowered Communities: Empowered People Design Report, 2015, p. 1)

It is a proposition of regional leaders who are strategically thinking about what it would take for prosperity and good fortune in terms of the social, cultural, and economic participation of Indigenous people in the wider society. Repositioning value is talking the language of prosperity and productivity and challenging everyone to think differently. The proposal seeks to stop measuring the deficits and provide a community grounded solution to what is an obvious challenge.

Empowerment, in our meaning, has two aspects. It means Indigenous people empowering ourselves by taking all appropriate and necessary powers and responsibilities for our own lives and futures. It also means Commonwealth, state and territory governments sharing, and in some cases relinquishing, certain powers and responsibilities, and supporting Indigenous people with resources and capability building. (Empowered Communities: Empowered People Design Report, 2015, p. iii).

The new approach will stop defining Indigenous people as ‘the problem’ and the only agents of change. The approach becomes more sophisticated, more integrated, and more accountable to broaden the perspective beyond crisis intervention, which tends to only target change in the Indigenous communities. The emergent model can hold everyone accountable – indigenous and non-Indigenous, all levels of government, and industry. The concept behind empowered communities is to recognise previous government policies for Indigenous affairs

100

have not worked, so there is a need to try ‘something else’ (Bajada & Trayler, 2014; Lewis, 2011; Wotherspoon & Hansen, 2013).

The language of prosperity and repositioning value is relatively new; therefore, published literature is limited. A literature search using the university’s databases using keywords: Empowered Communit* found only one article. E. Klein (2015) reviewed the inaugural Empowered Communities Report. E. Klein (2015) provided a sceptical overview of the Empowered Communities approach and questioned if the focus of the proposal is: a mechanism of neo-assimilation because the model’s non-negotiable first priority agreements, the belief that economic development is the primary focus for Indigenous empowerment, and the reframing of agency as making the ‘right choices’ (p 35).

Although indicators such as education, employment, and economic development are not the only measures of prosperity, there is enough evidence to suggest they undoubtedly play a role in the ability to obtain self-determination, parity, respect, and value. Bajada and Trayler (2014) argue that social and economic outcomes are crucial to closing the gap and that Indigenous Australians are substantially under-represented in many professional areas including in business ownership and management. They contend:

business development plays a critical role in repositioning Indigenous people in their local communities and society more broadly, empowering the individual but also how business education plays a critical role in repositioning Indigenous people in their local communities and society more broadly (p 614).

The Empowered Communities’ framework is based on collaborations towards ‘closing the gap on the social and economic disadvantage of the Indigenous Australians of the empowered communities regions’. Equally important is the sustainability of Indigenous culture and recognition of those rights to self-determination to protect what is left of each community’s cultural heritage for future generations. Papers were found for two additional Empowered Communities sites for the Kimberly in Western Australia and South Australia (Hattam, Rigney, & Hemming, 2007; S Hemming & D Rigney, 2008; Poelina, 2020) through searching for Indigenous community governance. Similar to the Yorta Yorta, the communities are working

101

towards their aspirations to achieve equality by trailing different approaches to empowerment and self-determination.

CHAPTER SUMMARY Some of the areas covered in the literature review are about Indigenous self-determination, empowerment, reciprocity, respect, and value. The literature to date suggests that positive self-esteem, empathy, belief, problem solving skills, and social, cultural, and community inclusion and participation are imperative, as are strong relationships and networks to facilitate change. Furthermore, community connectedness and the ability for communities to work together to reach a consensus on agreed-upon goals are also key.

The purpose of this literature review chapter was to investigate existing literature about racism and colonial privilege. It examined what authors are writing about concerning the impact of government policies, including colonisation, resistance, adaption, and oppression. The community’s concepts of self-determination and how they differ was defined. The literature search looked for relevant papers on empowered communities but failed to find a community perspective from an Indigenous leadership response as well as a government perspective specifically focusing on strategies of empowerment and capacity building that consider the social, cultural, and economic position. There must be a shift in wider society from the embedded historical recollection and perception of cultural relativism; it seems Indigenous futures are still dependent on the rest of Australia recognising their privileged position and willingness to relinquish power and control. It will require a collective approach that recognises the need for all Australians, Indigenous and non-Indigenous, to play a role in realigning power relationships and reconstituting social structures.

The majority of literature pertaining to Indigenous Australians continues to emphasise the poor statistics, disadvantage, and deficits. There is an emerging body of literature on how to challenge the narrative embedded in the country's history and how to invest in and build the social, cultural, and economic value of Indigenous communities. However, there is little literature specifically from a regional Indigenous perspective that fundamentally addresses the underlying causes of long-term disadvantage while also developing a plan using the

102

foundations of self-determination. The next chapter covers the research design and methods used to answer the research questions.

103

CHAPTER FOUR - RESEARCH DESIGN: THEORY AND METHODS

OVERVIEW This chapter provides an overview of how the research was approached, including the design, procedures, and description of the methods employed to answer the research questions. In this chapter I explain the use of case study design and the conceptual framework, including the research's theoretical and methodological underpinnings. An assessment of the methodological soundness is included, along with a discussion of research ethics in relation to this research.

This research synthesises the Yorta Yorta communities’ empowerment proposal, which has taken many years to conceptualise and even longer to implement and trial, breaking down century-old barriers to envision a more strategic future. After years of subjection and oppression, strategies of empowerment and investing in change on multiple levels are not without challenges. Understanding the successes and complexities of Indigenous-driven empowerment approaches will expand on the existing literature, highlighting the benefits and barriers of empowerment and ways in which long term and sustainable change can be generated.

The research was identified as a community priority by the Kaiela Institute, which has been relentless in its drive to make radical changes to Indigenous people's health and well-being in the Goulburn Murray region ("Kaiela Institute Independent Centre for Leadership and Innovation ", 2018). The Kaiela Institute evolved over a 30-year period from the Koori Resource and Information Centre established in 1988. According to the Kaiela Institute website, the focus has always been about ‘providing a place and a process to encourage and support leaders and institutions to collaborate and take a more strategic approach to building the future of Indigenous communities’ ("Kaiela Institute Independent Centre for Leadership and Innovation ", 2018).

The theoretical tools and research methodologies that inform, support, and guide the research to answer the research questions considered the current position of Indigenous people in Australia and where that position originated. The first theory used was Critical

104

Theory; the research was interested in the impact of colonisation on Indigenous people's subsequent position. This project investigated how a regional Indigenous community developed and implemented a plan to move away from the deficit and disadvantage language that is used to describe Indigenous people by advocating for an approach that builds on self-determination, investment, and capacity building. The community seeks the provision of non-discrimination and an opportunity to be treated as equal regardless of race, ethnicity, class, gender, or religion. Therefore, the second theory used was Indigenist Research, where the primary objective is to challenge traditional oppressive or benevolent behaviours and focus on strengths, empowerment, and self-determination for Indigenous peoples (D. Foley, 2003).

THEORETICAL UNDERPINNING The research was framed within a qualitative approach. Qualitative research, particularly in the social sciences, focuses on social phenomena or experiences that cannot always be counted in numbers (Toye, 2015). There are many theories that researchers can adopt in qualitative research (Liamputtong, 2012). A theoretical framework consists of concepts and literature of existing theories that are relevant to the research and that relate to the broader areas of knowledge being considered for the project (Anfara & Mertz, 2006). In effect, the theoretical framework provides the lens by which we see, understand, and make sense of the research topic. This research is informed by critical theory and Indigenous standpoint. In terms of the position of Indigenous people, Australia’s colonial history, and the ongoing impacts of government policies, sociology provides a range of structural and post-structural conceptual frameworks for this analysis that interrogate the basis of current disadvantage and its meaning for Indigenous people. The challenge is to assess the extent to which these frameworks facilitate more positive Indigenous futures (Germov & Poole, 2007, p. 292). The historical theories of race and the invalid biological and science-based frameworks that were used to ‘prove’ that indigenous Australians were biologically and culturally inferior (Anderson, 2003; Broome, 2001; Germov & Poole, 2007; Markus, 1994) have been replaced by theories that are more open to diversity.

105

Critical Theory Critical Theory is described by D. Foley (2003, p. 45) as a theory that stimulates self-reflection in order to free t hose being researched from the restrictions and repression of the established social order with its repressive ideologies. Therefore, critical theory is interested in power relations, and reality is a product of these power relations and acknowledges that we all have a moral obligation to make things better. From an Indigenous research perspective, D. Foley (2003, p. 45) explains Critical Theories ultimate aim is to free individual groups and society from conditions of domination, powerlessness and oppression, which reduce the control over their own lives. The purpose of Critical Theory is to critique society through a social justice lens with the implicit aim to make transformative change to improve the situation as it is.

This research is about one regional community’s aspirations for change, and it acknowledges the power struggles and social relations, it sees the differences the inequality between Indigenous and non-Indigenous people living on Yorta Yorta country and seeks to explain how and why systems of collective representations that do not serve Indigenous people’s objectives or interests but rather continue to uphold existing power structures are yet to be dismantled. The basis for this thesis is considering ways to transform the position of Indigenous peoples position within the broader society, looking at their relationships with other people for the better and in a socially just way.

Indigenist Research Indigenist research supports the work of Indigenous scholars developing research methodologies that articulate Indigenous ontologies, epistemologies, and knowledge systems (Nakata, 1998; Rigney, 2001; Tuhiwai-Smith, 2012; Walter & Moreton-Robinson, 2009). According to (Rigney, 1999b, p. 119), by incorporating Indigenous people’s experience and knowledge into research, ‘we can begin to shift the construction of knowledge to one that does not compromise Indigenous identity and Indigenous principles of independence, unity, and freedom from racism’. An understanding of the complexity of this line of inquiry is reached through my own experience as an Indigenous person. There is a responsibility in the creation of new knowledge for Indigenous scholars, for this is the

106

story that we are telling our children and future generations about us. Rigney (1999b, p. 110) maintains:

Indigenist methodology is a step toward assisting Indigenous theorists and practitioners to determine what might be an appropriate response to delegitimate racist oppression in research and shift to a more empowering and self-determining outcome. Moreover, I am attempting to find ways to represent the interests of Indigenous Australians and First Nations Peoples through appropriate research epistemologies and methodology. Rigney explains the rise of Indigenous scholars in the academy coincides with the emergence of Indigenist Research, and both are recent historical phenomena (Rigney, 2006, p. 33). Nakata (1998) recognised early in his career the need for Indigenous people to learn and understand the systems and processes to know the position of Indigenous people through the same with the same system of thinking, logic and rationality that have historically not served Indigenous interests at all (Rigney, 2006, p. 39). However, both Nakata and Rigney have done a substantial amount of work on reforming research methodologies as a way forward. Indigenous knowledge is the most important resource for Indigenous communities. A part of the responsibility of Indigenous researchers is about critiquing traditional forms of research methods and ensuring integrity and reciprocity of mutual respect and accountability are upheld in the creation of new knowledge. It is as much about reconciling the history and reframing the future, so the measures move away from the deficit in Indigenous peoples lives to strengthen our position through the use of research and the data that we are producing.

The three principles that Rigney (2006, p. 42) developed to inform the Indigenist research strategy are:

• Resistance as emancipatory imperative in Indigenist research • Political integrity in indigenous research and • Privileging Indigenous voices

Using Rigney (1999a) Resistance as the emancipatory imperative in Indigenist Research – this research was undertaken with one Indigenous community as part of their struggle for empowerment and self-determination and is about challenging the status quo of Indigenous people in the community. This research engaged with the community’s history since invasion 107

and all the subsequent events but tells the story of resilience, survival, hope and aspirations. Despite the oppressive and assimilative policies, the community is still finding a way to hold on to what is important to them and are working towards a better future for generations to come. Political Integrity – the research was an identified priority of the Indigenous community. It was undertaken by an Indigenous researcher who has worked in and contributed to the community’s empowerment proposal for many years. And finally, Privileging Indigenous Voices – a review of the history of the Yorta Yorta people was undertaken and a detailed account of their legacy of leaders, their lived experiences, ideas, vision and aspirations for changing the future for Indigenous people living on their country.

Being an Indigenous researcher and undertaking Indigenous research in your own community, you recognise the privilege of preserving and sharing Indigenous knowledge and experiences. It is often difficult to convey the stories that are often inherently different to an audience set in their own set of moral beliefs, values, and ways of knowing and doing and are not always open to viewing or seeing the world through someone else’s perspective, particularly those of different cultural backgrounds. A part of that is understanding how power relations work through knowledge and knowing practices when considering how to make a difference for Indigenous peoples. As Rigney (2001, p. 7) suggests,

There is a new basis emerging for contemporary critical Indigenous scholarship. Since the mid 1960s, Indigenous critiques of science in Australia have called for the transformation of Western science and its applications to more progressive kinds of knowledge seeking methods. Contemporary Indigenist thinkers have challenged the ‘racialised’ foundations of science.

Western ideologies have not traditionally considered Indigenous peoples key contributors concerning matters that affect our lives; for that reason, we all have a responsibility to ensure Indigenous voices are central to the research and that these inform the creation of new knowledge and captures their unique perspectives, including the language and stories as told to them by those who have come before them—recognising and often reflecting on the fundamental reciprocal of connectedness and the importance of culture and community into the future.

108

In the opening chapter, I discuss the community’s expectations of Indigenous researchers researching their community, the rewards, and the expectation of reciprocity and mutual respect. Understanding the historical context, participants' lived experiences, and being aware of the behind-the-scenes politics and passions that drive the community’s agenda made this research possible. Critical theory seeks to take society as an object and attempts to transcend the tensions between the socially constructed ideologies and dispel the myths. If the consequential position of Indigenous peoples was socially constructed, then it can be reconstructed. This research contributes to the strategies of empowerment, prosperity and self-determination (Rigney, 2006) while fostering cultural sustainability and affirmation.

RESEARCH DESIGN A qualitative case study is defined as an ‘empirical inquiry that investigates a contemporary phenomenon in depth and within its real-life context, especially when the boundaries between the phenomenon and the context are not clearly evident’ (Yin, 2009, p. 18). The purpose of a qualitative case study is to find an example that demonstrates a specific phenomenon and to study that phenomenon in-depth to gain a better understanding of what attributes or forces are at play in a specific setting. A qualitative case study was used to underpin the research design of this project and answer the research questions (Yin, 2003, 2009). The case study was chosen to understand a specific social phenomenon within a specific social context. The research was undertaken on Yorta Yorta country in the Goulburn Murray region of Victoria with the aim of bringing together all the contextual factors that have contributed to the Indigenous community’s prosperity plan.

The Goulburn Murray region of Victoria’s vision and approach to building a more prosperous and equitable society has been explored and is presented in this thesis as a case study. The study focused on government and Indigenous leaders’ responses to and engagement with the concept of repositioning the value of Indigenous peoples in the Goulburn Murray region of Victoria.

109

METHODS The research methods provide the practical process and development of actions to answer the research question and includes the sampling strategy, data collection, data management, data analysis and reporting (Carter & Little, 2007). A qualitative case study was employed to understand and describe a specific social phenomenon (H. K. Klein & Myers, 1999)

Two research questions guided this project:

• What attributes are the Yorta Yorta people investing in, in terms of actions, processes, infrastructure, principles, and practices to reposition the value of Indigenous people in the region?

• What are the contextual, historical, and political factors that have influenced the successes and failures of Indigenous people in their quest for prosperity on country?

A single case study methodology was selected to answer the research questions. According to Kumar (2019), case studies are used to gain an in-depth and holistic understanding of a particular area. A case study method provides relevant data from a specific site that can be used to explore and understand a particular issue (Johnston & Zawawi, 2009).

Despite the substantial literature describing the struggles for social justice and autonomy for Indigenous Australians, there is limited literature on the proliferation of Indigenous communities backed by self-determination and self-management policies from a regional community perspective over the past 20 years. This research fills that void using one regional Indigenous community case study in the Goulburn Murray region of Victoria. The research traces the history of these struggles and examines the Yorta Yorta community’s response to repositioning the social, cultural and economic value.

A case study examines a phenomenon within a specific context (Eisenhardt, 1991; H. K. Klein & Myers, 1999; Yin, 2009). The case study method was used to achieve the required depth of understanding about a regional community’s approach to repositioning value; there was a choice between a single case study or multiple case study sites (Gustafsson, 2017). The research had initially planned to compare another empowered community’s site on the east

110

coast of Australia that shared a similar history to the Yorta Yorta Nation and a New Zealand community doing reasonably well in terms of their community governance structures political approach. However, a single case study method within a qualitative case study design was chosen due to time restrictions and limited resources associated with post-graduate studies. The Indigenous community have been investing in a concept of prosperity on country. Work has been undertaken for several years to build a regional self-governance model by working with all levels of government and community on a different approach to repositioning the value of Indigenous people in the region.

The single case study design was adequate to answer the research questions. This case study site allowed for an extensive description of one regional Indigenous community in the Goulburn Murray region of Victoria, including the current Indigenous organisations, and an in-depth look at their regional approach to prosperity on country and repositioning value. The case study also allowed for an explanation of how their approach was developed and implemented and what they perceive to be their key successes and challenges in the process. The key advantage of case study research is the ability to gain a holistic understanding of the social phenomena in a real-life context (Myers & Klein, 2011).

Methods of Data Collection Historically, Indigenous voices have been disregarded or have gone unheard in research, or their unique perspectives, knowledge, and views have been undervalued. This has created distrust and cynicism among communities towards researchers (Tuhiwai-Smith, 2012). Trust is paramount in undertaking research, particularly in Indigenous communities (Marilys Guillemin et al., 2016). Marilys Guillemin et al. (2016, p. 1) conclude that Indigenous people are reluctant to participate in research. One of the key influences is:

In weighing up their decision to participate, some Indigenous participants clearly articulated what was valued in conducting research with Indigenous communities, for example, honesty, reciprocity, and respect; these values were explicitly used to assist their decision whether or not to participate.

The Yorta Yorta community has well-established connections and networks, yet there are complexities in relationships. It was necessary to be aware of the fragmentation among

111

different groups and ensure participants felt comfortable sharing their perspectives openly and honestly without fear of reprisal.

It was also important to ensure that the sampling would provide a concise picture of community attitudes, experiences, and views relevant to the study. Online surveys or focus groups would be unlikely to receive sufficient responses and were deemed unlikely to be completed by identified participants without further engagement, particularly those not aligned specifically with the Kaiela Institute’s empowered communities or prosperity plan, the latter relating primarily to fragmentation between organisations. Therefore, face-to-face interviews were conducted for in-depth understanding and identification of possible solutions to problems encountered (Liamputtong, 2012). The questions were generally about participants’ perspective of the community’s current governance structures and what they think this community does well, and what areas could be improved.

Project Governance A Cultural Advisory Committee was established and supported through the Kaiela Institute’s Algabonyah Community Cabinet. The Cultural Advisory Committee was responsible for advice about cultural aspects, including identifying potential participants, devising and testing the interview schedule, topic guides, and advice on any issues that arose throughout the project. In addition to the Cultural Advisory Committee, a smaller Project Management Group was responsible for implementing and overseeing the project.

Data Collection Method

In qualitative research, several methodologies can be employed to test a concept or nuance of ideas of a target audience (Liamputtong, 2012). Two of the more common methodologies are in-depth interviews and focus groups (Carter & Little, 2007). For this research project, in- depth interviews were chosen. It was important to obtain each participant’s individual experience and perception of the topic without interruption and allow flexibility in scheduling interviews. The identified participants are leaders within the community, and many hold multiple positions; therefore, it would have been challenging to align the participants’ busy schedules to run a focus group. Two primary methods of data collection were used: 1) interviewing (two groups of participants) and 2) observation. 112

Interviews

A list of potential participants was constructed in consultation with the Kaiela Institute. The participants were derived from identified leaders who had previously or were currently contributing in some capacity to Indigenous community development in the region. Participants were initially invited to participate in the study by email, with information about the study, the plain language statement, and a consent form. Emails alone were not effective in eliciting a response. The participants were then followed up with a phone call, which resulted in the majority agreeing to meet in person to discuss the project and then agreeing to undertake a face-to-face interview. A series of in-depth face-to-face interviews were undertaken with key decision makers and drivers of Indigenous community development. Local Goulburn Murray senior executives were approached and invited to participate in an interview with six of the eight leading Indigenous organisations: Rumbalara Aboriginal Cooperation, Kaiela Institute, Yorta Yorta Nations, Lulla’s, Ganbina, and the Rumbalara Football Netball Club. Additional interviews were undertaken with empowered communities’ leaders, Indigenous leaders in the treaty talks in Victoria, and relevant government representatives who have invested directly into the region. The interviews were semi-structured and led to in-depth conversations that would not have been possible with a more formulaic approach. By using the face-to-face interview approach, each participant was able to control the conversations and ensure a measure of trust and reassurance through in-person contact. This resulted in richer insights and a fluent conversation (Julien, Wright, & Zinni, 2010). The interviews were undertaken with a purposeful sample of pre-identified research participants. Purposeful sampling is described as: The logic and power of purposeful sampling lie in selecting information-rich cases for study in depth. Information-rich cases are those from which one can learn a great deal about issues of central importance to the purpose of the inquiry, thus the term purposeful sampling. Studying information-rich cases yields insights and in-depth understanding rather than empirical generalisations. (Patton, 2002, p. 230)

In addition to the community leaders from the Indigenous organisations, selected government representatives were contacted and invited to participate in an interview.

113

Members of local, state and federal government, as well as Indigenous leaders in government positions, (e.g., employees of the Aboriginal Affairs Victoria who have undertaken significant work in the state community consultations on Treaty negotiations and the Special Adviser for Aboriginal Self Determination from the Department of Premier and Cabinet’s, Aboriginal Victoria). Not everyone who was invited to participate in the study agreed to do so. The researcher knew many of the identified participants prior to the interviews, particularly those who worked in the Indigenous organisations and had come to know the government personnel by attending meetings hosted by the Kaiela Institute in relation to the prosperity plan, regional self-governance, or the establishment of their data unit. Those whose contact details were not readily available were obtained from the Kaiela Institute database with permission. The researcher contacted each potential participant. Initial contact was made by email (Appendix E), which included an overview of the research, a plain language statement (Appendix A), consent form (Appendix B) and relevant ethics information. Participants who did not respond to the initial email were then followed up with a phone call to invite them to take part in the research project by participating in an interview at a time and place that was convenient to them. Twenty of the thirty-one prospective participants agreed to participate in the interview. Five declined to participate, with most citing time constraints as a reason. One of the identified potential participants was too sick to participate during the data collection phase. Four participants did not respond to the invitation either by email or phone, and one of the identified participants could not be contacted during the data collection phase, despite several attempts. The interview schedules (Appendix C & D) focused on three strategic areas identified by the Kaiela Institute as key focus areas towards the region’s prosperity plan. They are: • COMMUNITY GOVERNANCE: The Kaiela Institute has identified the current community governance structure as an area for improvement, contending the current governance structure sees Indigenous organisations operating in silos and often competing with each other – while servicing the same group of people. • TRANSFORMING RELATIONSHIP WITH GOVERNMENT: A change in government policies in relation to Indigenous affairs. The current government models of

114

funding require communities to continue the cycle of disadvantage, and the current funding practices are not enough for a substantial change in society or for the community to participate equally in the economy. The funding is driven by government priorities that focus on interventions that target change only in the Indigenous populations and not the broader society. • DEFICIT TO INVESTMENT LANGUAGE: The community has been investing in ways to flip the deficit language to an investment language to discontinue the selling of disadvantage and work towards implementing language of empowerment and investment.

Observations Data was also collected through the researcher’s observations and participation in the Kaiela Institute’s day-to-day operations, including meetings for the Algabonyah Community Cabinet and Algabonyah Data Unit, Empowered Communities workshops and community meetings. Employment and education roundtables and various other meetings the Kaiela Institute hosted during the data collection phase were also included.

The Kaiela Institute believes the underlying problems that prevent Indigenous communities from advancing are primarily Western-constructed. The impact of colonial structures and institutions in maintaining a false narrative that continuously depreciates the value and contribution of Indigenous Australians to the broader community must be recognised.

Data Analysis Twenty face-to-face, in-depth interviews were undertaken. According to Liamputtong and Ezzy (2005, p. 49), ‘when the researcher is satisfied that the data are rich enough and cover enough of the dimensions they are interested in, then the sample is large enough’. I was confident I had reached the point of saturation, and no new themes were emerging after 20 interviews. It was anticipated the interviews would be approximately one hour. The average interview was 90 minutes. Interview times ranged from two hours to 50 minutes. On a few occasions, the interview was incomplete due to time constraints. When that occurred, the participant was followed up with a phone call to answer the remaining questions. The interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed.

115

The interview transcripts were then imported into NVivo, a qualitative data analysis software. The software was useful in organising and manipulating the interview transcripts to support the analyses. The data was then coded manually using an inductive approach according to recurrent themes, unifying concepts or statements corresponding to the data, and guiding research questions to generate an in-depth narrative of the community’s approach to repositioning value and identifying their successes and challenges.

All the transcripts were carefully examined, and commonalities in themes were developed (Liamputtong, 2012; G. W. Ryan & Bernard, 2003). The preliminary findings were discussed with key personnel at the Kaiela Institute to ensure there were no potential risks or sensitivities in the current cultural and political climate from a community perspective.

Thematic analysis is a respected approach in social science research that focuses on identifiable themes and patterns (Aronson, 1995). A thematic analysis was undertaken using an integrated approach (Liamputtong, 2012). An integrated approach retains the benefits of inductive coding while acknowledging certain code types are useful in developing certain forms of output. Therefore, the project began with a broad code type. By undertaking a process of reading the transcripts in the first instance, then rereading to create possible content codes and then refining the properties began the process of revising codes and accommodating different perspectives coming out of the transcripts (Braun & Clarke, 2006). This was done until the final code was created, which formed the structure that was applied to all transcripts. The code structure evolved inductively.

The analysis reassembles the contextual factors (e.g., the social, cultural and economic factors) that together determine the success and challenges and the community's overall performance. Central to the thematic analysis is coding connection, organising, and comparing (Gibbs & Flick, 2007). New themes emerged from the process of manually coding and analysing the data.

ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS As an Indigenous researcher undertaking Indigenous research, specific considerations were made with respect to engaging in ethical, respectful, and culturally sensitive research with

116

the Indigenous community in line with the National Health Research Medical Council ("Human Research Ethics Committees," 2018). An important ethical consideration is to ensure that any research involving Indigenous communities contributes to positive outcomes for the community.

The health, wellbeing and experiences of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples continue to be the focus of much research to promote positive outcomes. Over the years, research has contributed to positive outcomes and benefits in, for example, health, medicine and education, and in preserving the languages, stories and songs of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples and communities in culturally appropriate ways. (NHMRC, 2018b, p. 1)

The Kaiela Institute was approached at the beginning of my candidature and asked what research would be most beneficial to the Indigenous community. The research was developed in collaboration with the Kaiela Institute, which has been included since inception and continually involved throughout the entirety of the research project. They have provided regular guidance and input. Throughout my candidature, I was stationed at the Kaiela Institute. This allowed easy access to staff and management, and I was regularly involved in meetings regarding the specific programs and projects relevant to this research. This research was cleared through the University of Melbourne’s Human Research and Ethics Committee: Ethics ID number 1851319.1 to ensure the design, conduct and dissemination of results were conducted in line with ethical standards and to ensure the project fulfils the principles of human research ethics, including research merit and integrity, justice, beneficence and respect. The ethics application was automatically flagged as high risk because it involved Indigenous research. This project included a community consultation process in line with the NHMRC ethical guidelines (2018b). The research was derived as a community priority. It was overseen by the board and management of the Kaiela Institute, and the researcher was careful to respect community protocols. The principles and the six core values of Spirit and integrity, Reciprocity, Respect, Equality, Survival and protection and Responsibility as outlined in the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples and communities: Guidelines for researchers and stakeholders were applied at all times for this project (NHMRC, 2003, 2018a). The research was designed to consider

117

ethical considerations from the beginning. Participants were provided with a plain language statement and advised about any potential risk, such as identifiable information and transparency, prior to participating in an interview. Potential participants were made aware their participation was voluntary, and they were able to withdraw any interview data until the project is published. There were no incentives or payments offered to any participants in return for their time and knowledge. Although recognising participants important contributions, the project was not funded. All participants were identified as leaders in paid positions, and the research was relevant to their respective roles in the region (M. Guillemin & Gillam, 2004). The data was collected, stored, and analysed in line with the university’s protocols. Any identifying information was removed immediately after completing the interview; no names were included on interview transcripts, and numbers were assigned immediately. Identifying information such as signed consent forms were stored separately to interview transcripts in a locked filing cabinet at the university. All other data was stored on a password-protected and secure computer.

Generating meaningful research to deliver maximum benefit to the community was a priority of this project from the beginning. The NHMRC (2018b) guidelines suggest strong dissemination of research features two-way dialogues for the research findings to be tailored to suit a target audience with the opportunity for the research outcomes to be updated and improved accordingly from the feedback received. The research results will be developed into a series of papers for various publications, and a community report will be produced. In addition, relevant community members will be invited to attend an information session where the research findings will be presented.

CHAPTER SUMMARY This chapter outlined the overall research approach, its theoretical orientation, the selection, design, procedures, and description of the method employed for the research to answer the research questions. In addition, the use of a case study research methodology was justified. The chapter also covered the process for data collection and analysis, project governance,

118

and ethical considerations. The next chapter provides an in-depth look at the Goulburn Murray region of Victoria, which forms the basis for the case study for this project.

119

CHAPTER FIVE – SOCIAL AND CULTURAL STATUS

OVERVIEW In the context of prosperity on country and repositioning the social, cultural, and economic value of Indigenous peoples living on Yorta Yorta country, the results and discussion are presented over the following three chapters in an integrated fashion with the findings of this study presented and related to existing literature.

The community approach to challenging the status and the position of Indigenous peoples living in the Goulburn Murray region of Victoria is examined across three key areas: The social and cultural status of Indigenous people living on Yorta Yorta country, an overview of the community including strengths and challenges of this community that come out of the data. The results chapter engages with the community’s work and vision around regional governance and transforming relationships with government.

This chapter aims to focus on the leadership responses identified in interviews and case study data as relevant to the practice of Indigenous community development and empowerment of Indigenous peoples in the Goulburn Murray region of Victoria. The chapter examines the social, cultural, economic, and political landscape that has strengthened or impeded the position of Indigenous people in the Goulburn Murray region of Victoria through the lens of the leadership response to the historical and current status of Indigenous peoples living on Yorta Yorta country. The Yorta Yorta people’s concept of repositioning value comes from the thinking that there is a lack of respect and value of Indigenous rights and culture within broader society and the local community. Historically, the lack of respect and devaluing of Indigenous peoples has its origins in colonisation and has since been entrenched in the rationale of the occupation of lands that were originally, and still are, home to Indigenous peoples.

THE STATUS OF INDIGENOUS PEOPLES The social, cultural, economic and political status of Indigenous people from a historical point of view was ‘based on four specific European biases: geographic Europe as the centre; and Christianity, mercantile economies and political imperialism as superior paradigms’ (Webb, 2012, p. 76). These biases were underpinned by the belief that the country’s original 120

inhabitants were ‘primitive, if not sub-human’ (ALRC, 2010), which permitted a profound disempowerment and mistreatment of Indigenous Australians.

… unable to see, let alone credit, the facts that have convinced modern anthropologists that the Aborigines are a deeply religious people. That blindness … profoundly affected European conduct toward the Aborigines. It reinforced two opposed views — that they were a survival into modern times of a protoid form of humanity incapable of civilisation, and that they were decadents from a once-higher life and culture. It fed the psychological disposition to hate and despise those whom the powerful have injured … It allowed European moral standards to atrophy by tacitly exempting from canons of right, law, and justice acts of dispossession, neglect, and violence at Aboriginal expense. (Rowley, 1978, p. 7) The consequences of these biases and the resulting actions are still being felt by Indigenous peoples today (Eckermann, 2010). Disempowerment and domination of governments remain prevalent in the day-to-day behaviours of interventions that are the result of these original European prejudices and preconceptions, which are now reinforced through various government policies that proceeded to follow Indigenous peoples from invasion to today.

Indigenous peoples, with their vastly different systems of law and governance, could not be tolerated as equals and colonisation resulted in the exercise of authority over Indigenous peoples against their will. While this authority was often grounded in humanism and based on notions of trusteeship, Anaya describes this as a form of ‘scientific racism’ that considered Indigenous peoples and their cultures as inferior. (Webb, 2012, p. 77)

The implications of government policies and prejudice against Indigenous peoples are exemplified in the Goulburn Murray region. ‘The government approaches are still about the assimilation of Indigenous practices and still from the point of dispossession (P 9). Indigenous peoples have a long history of dispossession, including culture, kinship and traditional lands, and their rights have been denied. All these combined have played a substantial part in the status of Indigenous peoples in Australian society. Indigenous people are continuing the fight against assimilation and for recognition and acceptance of their unique identities. Similarly, another participant spoke about the issue being part of the indoctrination of colonisation and believes the prejudices are so deeply ingrained in the rationale of the country that it has become the norm:

121

You are constantly reminded that you are Aboriginal, and you don’t belong and how dare you come into ‘our world’. Like I was saying, it’s that indoctrination of colonisation continually happening, and people not aware that they are. [It] fringes on people being racist, and they are like, ‘What, me racist? No way my best friend is an Aboriginal person.’ But they don’t realise that… that you know how they offend people how they offend us as a nation of people (P 3).

Indigenous people have been excluded from every aspect of the developing societies, including the social, cultural, political, and economic development of the country, that neglect to acknowledge the fact that Indigenous people were here first. Bond (2017) suggests ‘race isn't just a single social category, it is a hierarchical classificatory power structure which systematically positions Aboriginal people at the very bottom’ – having to constantly defend your existence and be a part of a society that promises equality but instead continually produces inequality, racism and discrimination and broadens the gap between Indigenous Australians and all other Australians. The real problem does not sit with Indigenous people who have fought incredibly hard to sustain their identity and keep the culture alive, but rather the answer lies within the irrefutable truth of the history of the country and the ongoing attempts to eliminate the very existence of the country’s original inhabitants. Despite failed government policies and practices, Indigenous Australians have managed to retain the social, cultural, economic, and political characteristics, regardless of the depth of colour of the skin, the growing levels of education, or increase in employment – Indigenous people are still here.

To assume what Walter (2016) describes as the five d’s – disparities, disadvantage, deprivation, dysfunction and difference – and injustices forced upon Indigenous people is to deny, disempower, and silence discussion of the inequities experienced by Indigenous peoples.

I don’t know what it is – and it has to do with how we are viewed – that reposition how we are viewed by the non-Aboriginal people. Something has to give you know – like we can’t have the next generation the way society says that we are – dysfunctional and poor and disadvantaged. There is something wrong there in that narrative, isn’t there? (P 4).

The narrative for Indigenous people is viewed and interpreted through a colonial lens, a lens that was created by the colonising society to support their priorities and to justify the

122

dispossession and treatment of Indigenous people. Consequently, ‘…in colonizing nation- states, statistics applied to indigenous peoples have a raced reality that is perpetuated and normalised through their creation and re-creation’ (Walter, 2016, p. 79). The process of invasion or colonisation has been to the detriment of Indigenous nations and has directly resulted in significant disruption of the social, cultural, economic, spiritual, and political being of Indigenous societies (Howitt, 2012), including in the Goulburn Murray region of Victoria. It is also directly related to the degradation, marginalisation, suppression, and exclusion of Indigenous people from the imposed colonial regimes. Indigenous Australians continue to experience ongoing exclusion, prejudice, racism and discrimination (Mellor, 2003; Pedersen, Beven, Walker, & Griffiths, 2004; Pedersen, Dudgeon, Watt, & Griffiths, 2006).

As described by participants, there has been no substantial shift in the power imbalance or relationships between Indigenous and non-Indigenous people or between Indigenous leadership and Western or mainstream leadership (Makuwira, 2007). ‘Without there being any sense of value by mainstream of the rights and contribution of Aboriginal people, so there is still that master-servant relationship, assimilative thinking that is pervasive with our relationship with mainstream authority’ (P 7). Having predominately been excluded from decision making processes and policies that affect Indigenous peoples, Indigenous leaders tend to engage with government and policy cautiously. Participants described operating daily in a highly uncertain political environment in two often conflicting worlds. They reported drawing on identity, community, and cultural connection as a source of strength to manage as best they can but expressed that it is not easy to operate in the Indigenous space while meeting the daily requirements of mainstream expectations or lack thereof (Katsonis, 2019). I suppose the challenges and the barriers are our space just doesn’t even run parallel to the non-Aboriginal space. Even though the next wave of new refugees are coming into our space, they get indoctrinated into how to be Australian. And how to be what I think how they stereotype Aboriginal people in that indoctrination, and we are at the bottom of the ladder. Always at the bottom and always got a disadvantage and a problem. They never see any positive or strengths in who we are as a nation – and they don’t want to. (P 3)

One of the overarching challenges to participants’ work is living in an oppressive society, where there is no sense of respect or value by the mainstream of the rights and contributions

123

of Indigenous people. For example, participants talked about how the economy that supports Indigenous people has been founded on welfare dependency (Morphy & Sanders, 2004). The effects are multiplied by the fact there is no independent, private economy that supports the community, vision, and aspirations because the only access to income is government welfare funds.

We have been innovative in ways to use … you know, the government funds to meet the needs of our community, but it doesn’t always meet the needs, and people know that we are a taxpayer dependant body of people and that if we are seen to be getting an advantage in some respect that people aren’t happy that taxpayer funds are doing that. (P 7)

Respect and value, and the ability to express yourself without fear of reprisal are important indicators and measures of how to strengthen and build resilience (Anderson, 2004; Peredo et al., 2004; Reilly, 2011)

Social Class and Social Stratification Social class or stratification is defined as ‘the ordering of society into groups or classes which have differential access to power, privilege, and status. Differential access to power, privilege, and status divides people into classes, which are based on the unequal distribution of income and wealth (Kelsall et al., 1984, p. 25). The data that portrays the story of Indigenous people can be interpreted from the perspective of resistance for generations of those who endured dispossession, oppression, isolation, racism, and discrimination who are isolated and unwelcomed on their ancestral lands or from the perspective of the dispossessors and oppressors who inflict racism and discrimination. History has contributed to the current situation where Indigenous people have been predominately allocated to the ‘lowest stratum in Australian society’ (Eckermann, 2010, p. 71) because the narrative recorded is that of the latter, and the voices of those who have endured are still silenced.

‘the majority of Australians ... do not know and relate to Aboriginal people. They relate to stories told by former colonists’ (Langton, 1993, p. 33).

Many contemporary empirical studies have investigated how an individual’s culture and identity dictate social positioning in society (Germov & McGee, 2005; Germov & Poole, 2014; Kelsall et al., 1984; Yates, 2006). Dodson agrees:

124

Since their first intrusive gaze, colonising cultures have had a preoccupation with observing, analysing, studying, classifying and labelling Aborigines and Aboriginality. Under that gaze, Aboriginality changed from being a daily practice to being ‘a problem to be solved’. (Dodson, 1994, p. 3)

As Eckermann (2010, p. 44) writes, ‘ultimately our understanding of social stratification and concomitantly social class comes from the writing of two great sociologists, Karl Marx and Max Weber’ who focused on power and poverty, ownership or non-ownership, large employers, the self-employed, and workers. Markers such as gender, race, ethnicity, culture, and diversity have been incorporated into these frameworks to explain how people’s position in society is determined (Nilan et al., 2007). The health status of Indigenous people living in Australia is described by (Dick, 2007) as relatively poor compared to other Australians and identified a large gap in inequality. There is a close association in Australia between ‘Indigenous’ and disparity, the cycle of welfare dependency, and poor outcomes (Walter, 2016). However, these are not cultural elements of being Indigenous and are by no means an appropriate measure of one’s Indigenous identity.

Grant (2016) highlights this point: ‘between 1996 and 2006, the Indigenous community in Australia was transformed. Numbers of educated well-paid professionals exploded. In just a decade, they increased by nearly 75 per cent.’ He goes on to talk about:

… the generation of doctors, lawyers, architects, engineers, scientists, and economists. They are plumbers and carpenters and electricians and builders. They run small businesses. They are entrepreneurs, and they are redefining what it is to be an Indigenous person. They overwhelmingly live in our cities and large towns ...

Although Bond (2017) was critiquing Grant’s theory of the growing middle class, or how the emergence of the middle class ‘presents new questions of identity’, she agrees there is:

An interesting fascination with the emergence of the so-called Aboriginal middle class, with our entrance into the ‘modern world’ economically met with mixed response. At times it is celebrated as a testament to our success and capabilities and the inclusive, egalitarian nature of Australian society, while at other times it is met with scorn and concern — that our newfound wealth is indicative of the fact that we might not really be Aboriginal after all.

125

Just as the rest of society has elements of social differentiation depending on education, profession, and access to power and privilege, there is evidence of growing social class distinctions within Indigenous communities. Langton (2013) also talks about ‘the emergence of an Aboriginal middle class in Australia in the last two to three decades has gone largely unnoticed. There are hundreds of Aboriginal businesses and Aboriginal not-for-profit corporations with income streams, delivering economic outcomes to communities on an unprecedented scale.’ One participant engaged with this point, sharing their experience and observation of the community landscape and the complexities of trying to capture the multifaced and ever-changing community here.

It sort of depends on what perspective you’re looking at it. There are those who are still sort of welfare-dependent, and then you’ve got some who own their own homes, and that isn’t there. That’s right, and there’s a lot in-between too, you know there’s the welfare dependency, there’s the broken that are substance abuse, mental health, schizophrenia that are just so disengaged, who would not believe that they’re part of the community at all – of the broader community, let alone their own community. There are those that are socially isolated, like the elderly or families that since they left Rumba, they’ve moved into town and become socially isolated, they’re disconnected from their own mob. Well, they’re working, and they’ve got kids playing sport, and they’re busy all the time. Do they feel they’re part of the community? Does it matter to them, or are they just getting on with life? So then, do they feel they’re part of the broader community? Maybe they do; they probably do. Then there’s those who work in the organisation, well they’re working at Rumba for example, or Mungab or Njernda or wherever. They’re there with their community every day, but when they step out of there and go home, where are they at then? How do they feel? There are so many layers. Then there’s the professional, your academics or whoever who are at a higher level, CEOs, whatever, who are different again. So, there’s no one size answer there that fits all. (P 13)

Most participants acknowledged there is a proportion of Indigenous peoples accessing education and contributing to the broader economy. However, proportionally more Indigenous groups still experience adversity and hardship and live in poverty compared to other Australians (Eckermann, 2010). The internal … well, not dilemma, but challenge for all Aboriginal communities. I heard this from an Aboriginal elder. It’s not my piece. I thought it was very wise, so I’ll talk about it around what’s changed and how come people aren’t connecting like they used

126

to or there is so much opposition internally, and he said: Back in the ’70s, there was a very common thread that linked all Aboriginal people together, and he said poverty was a part of that thread. Everyone come from a pretty low economic base, and everyone was struggling and helping each other out. Within that, a lot of people were labourers, or they weren’t working at all, so there was a lot of things in common on a day-to-day side. But now, as the community has progressed and the elders support the progression – kids are going through to Year 12 and going on to university, and some aren’t going through to Year 12, and some are going into the justice system instead. Then some people have really good jobs, and some people can’t get a job, some people got their own house, some people can’t even get a house. There is a lot more of that happening, and that is progress, but I think the journey of Rumbalara that is a part of growing with the successes and embracing them but also making sure that everyone comes along and moves along together. I don’t think we have done that as well as we could have. (P 9)

Indigenous people in the community are accessing educational pathways and progressing into careers. However, there are still those who are struggling. As the above participant highlights, the challenge is how to collectively address these growing disparities within the community and those between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians. The desire to alleviate the disadvantage and despair in the community is what drives Indigenous leaders working in the community, who hope for and aspire to a better future for generations still to come, so eventually, the proportion of those who are struggling is far less than those who are actively engaged and able to participate in the communities in which they live. The purpose is for our kids to live a better life than what we did. My kids have never gone hungry or never turned on the power, and the lights haven’t come on … the lights always come on because the bills have always been paid. I mean simple things like that even … struggles that kids nowadays have never had to experience. That is why we do this. There has always been a roof over their head; they have had housing and an education. Education has always been a key part of their lives. School’s not an option; it is just what life is like now. Not like it was when we were that age, we weren’t expected to succeed. (P 9)

Despite some generational improvements in life experiences, as pointed out by this participant, Indigenous people continue to feel isolated and excluded from the broader society. This research demonstrates the status of Indigenous people living in the Goulburn Murray region of Victoria remains relatively unchanged. It reflects more than just a relative 127

position or status within the broader society; it also reflects the heartfelt plea from Indigenous communities to not only feel a part of the community but to activate their fundamental human rights to participate in a society free from colonial judgement, discrimination, and racism. This was echoed in what the participants of this study communicated about how they feel Indigenous peoples living on Yorta Yorta country are perceived in society today.

Fringe Dwellers For Indigenous people, staying on their traditional lands is significantly important to overall health, quality of life, and wellbeing (P. Dudgeon et al., 2010). Land intrinsically links Indigenous people to wellness, family, culture, the past, and the future (Eckermann, 2010; Pascoe, 2014; Zubrick S, 2010). The innate connection to country plays an important role in the overall health and wellbeing of Indigenous Australians. The establishment of Aboriginal reserves is a product of past government policy, often overseen by churches or religious groups with the purpose of teaching Christian values and ideals. The reserves were built on Crown Land, set aside for Indigenous communities to reside (W. R. Atkinson, 2010). Many Indigenous peoples still feel a sense of connection and belonging to these areas. Some of the original parcels of land have been handed back to Indigenous traditional owner groups. The Cummeragunja Reserve and Rumbalara were among them. Some families continue to live there today, and others have maintained a strong connection to the Country on which they had experienced a kind of freedom and sense of community.

[They were] in and out of each other’s homes and really looked after each other before the missions and on The Flats – the community raised the child. Then they moved over to the edge of towns, and it’s like there’s always a boundary road in every town around the nation, like Alice Springs, or Shep, or Mooroopna or wherever, but that boundary where they weren’t allowed to cross come in, they were on the outskirts. When they come in [to towns], then they had to be split up. When they got to Rumba, they were under control again, but on The Flats, they were free and happy, you know. When they were together, they were thriving and good, but when they got broken, then it all went to hell basically. (P 13)

Moving families into towns with the purpose of assimilation incurred its own unique and complex difficulties. Assimilation was offered under the expectation that Indigenous people would forego traditional practices and change not only their physical location but adopt

128

communal behaviours. They were forced to change their values, morals, beliefs, and behaviours. The policy of assimilation means that all Aborigines and part-Aborigines are expected to attain the same manner of living as other Australians and to live as members of a single Australian community, enjoying the same rights and privileges, accepting the same customs and influenced by the same beliefs as other Australians. (Reynolds, 1972, p. 175) Before the assimilation policy was implemented, Indigenous people on Yorta Yorta Country were forming their protest about the poor living conditions and lack of rations and autonomy. This is known as the Cummeragunja Walk-Off (W. R. Atkinson, 2010). Not all families left the NSW mission, but many of those who did settled on river banks, on what was at that time the rubbish tip between Shepparton and Mooroopna and is known as The Flats (W. R. Atkinson, 2010). This history was shared in some participants’ narratives about their families’ experiences during that period:

Dad talks about when they walked off Cummera and those sorts of things. Um, there was no social services around, no money. They had to find ways of surviving off the land. Even living through the depression, you know, the drought and the depression. How did people survive? (P 4)

While the families were leaving the reserve and heading into the townships in protest of poor treatment, the mainstream community had preconceived, idealistic views about Indigenous people and were adamant that they were not about to become part of their already established societies (Etherington, 2007). It is hard to fathom the lack of conscience that fuelled fear among the broader population toward the traditional owners forming part of their established societies.

How to manage such deeply embedded prejudice that was exaggerated by cultural pressures between Indigenous and non-indigenous Australians is still a perplexing challenge, not only the social, cultural, or economic structures but also those entrenched in the political, legal and bureaucratic structures of each state and territory. The transgenerational trauma from that history, the past treatment and policies that had such a detrimental effect on the lives of Indigenous peoples was evident in several participants’ accounts. For example, one participant shared a story of their family’s experience living on The Flats and Rumbalara:

129

Well, both our mums lived at … well, all her kids were born on The Flats. They moved to Rumba, and they were in a house, and she had eight or nine kids, two brothers, her and her hubby in that little hut, you know, so how many is that? Twelve or 13 people. But the caretaker controlled everything, who came and went. The two brothers weren’t allowed to be there, so they’d be hiding in the bush and come in at night when he left – he’d done his check. For my mum, her sister lived there, and mum’s elderly dad was really unwell with Parkinson’s, and they were going to take him in at Rumba. But the caretaker refused to have him because he reckoned he was a drunk … the man had never drunk in his life, but he had the shakes. Parkinson’s, you know, he had Parkinson’s. So that control was there, and that again broke families, so they weren’t able to look after their elderly in that as well. (P 14)

Operating in an unsafe environment while dealing with the consequences of the past and carrying that trauma, thinking about the future, about maintaining culture, as an ongoing challenge. Participants articulated the relationships in the community, the family structures, and social relationships. Understanding the position of Indigenous people within the broader society today is complex. Indigenous people in the region are trying to navigate a future while still carrying the past when there has been no attempt to acknowledge or address it. The deficit position and narrative trend that has plagued Indigenous people tend to reflect the disadvantages that are often associated with being Indigenous and do not address these histories (Duffy, 2006). One participant articulated that although Indigenous people are afforded the right to live in any part of the community, in reality, there are significant challenges:

Aboriginal people have the right to live in any part of the community. Physically they have the right to be a part of any position, level, and profession in Shepparton. I think there is in what we are combating is racial stereotypes that are strong in Shepparton as across the state. I think we are combating those whether it is on the football field, basketball court, or rental of houses, or in going for a position. They are challenges that are as much alive in Shepparton, from my understanding, as anywhere else. Exclusion doesn’t have to be physical exclusion; it can be gracious exclusion from positions of authority. (P 14)

There is no one size fits all approach to fostering a genuine sense of belonging. There are members in the community who feel some sense of belonging and acceptance and a part of the broader society – predominantly those who are working and have some financial security

130

who would say, ‘racism doesn’t seem as bad as it used to be’ (P 6). This is particularly the case in more urbanised rural environments like Shepparton and Echuca, where the community has their infrastructure and services and relatively high employment rates (Algabonyah Score Card 2017).

However, there are also people in the community who struggle, and while they have strength in their family groups and networks, they continue to experience hardship and are sometimes described as ‘less fortunate’ (P 3). Those who are locked into the cycle of poverty and reliant on welfare and remain isolated and excluded from the broader society would say there has been no change and that ‘it is getting worse for us. Because they [less fortunate community members] lack opportunities – you know, they may not be educated enough (P 3). Several participants articulated this disconnection between broader society and social connection within the community:

I think we still feel as outsiders, still on the fringes, and when we look at our organisations and especially the two biggest organisations that bring people together – Rumbalara co-op and the footy club – they are both still on the fringes. (P 5)

Our mob still see themselves um separated, still separated, segregated, on the fringes or you know … Well, both – there is a social and economic disconnect, and some of that is because the business model that we are all caught up in and are a part of, it facilitates that sort of existence. (P 3)

We’ve come in off the fringes, but we’re still hiding. We’re not visible and deliberately so, by mainstream as well by hiding us. So, not putting us together, not accepting us, not recognising us and not saying that we’re here. (P 11)

Indigenous people living in the Goulburn Murray region still feel a sense of hostility, separation, segregation, and disconnection from the wider community, even though they have been living in the surrounding townships since the Cummeragunja Walk-Off in 1939. They are still negotiating for the right to be there and still trying to convince not only the non- Indigenous community that it is okay but also the Indigenous community:

Imagine the residents of The Flats looking across the river towards the town lights and thinking at some point we have to go into that town, knowing one day they will have to live there and think about ways of accessing their education and participate in their economy and move into their townships. (P 5) 131

Two hundred years later, the Yorta Yorta are still trying to find ways to fit into the society on their ancestral lands. Even though they have moved into the towns from the rubbish tip on the banks of the Goulburn River, they are still trying to find the space to build the Yorta Yorta people’s future.

It’s been a long journey in some respects for Indigenous people moving from the banks of the river – off the rubbish tip and into the townships – even though the distance would be less than two kilometres. Coming out of the Aboriginal Legal Service in the 1970s, standing up in courtrooms representing kids and looking at the racism that exists and trying to figure out how to challenge that. KRIC [Koori Resource and Information Centre] was set up, so people who walked off the street had somewhere to go to voice their concerns, or if they need help to access, say Centrelink, CES or whatever else was happening. It was somewhere they could go to pick up a phone and ring someone. Back in them days, that was a big thing. Not many people had those resources. It was the independent space where people can reflect, and community could drop in and not have to come in for an issue-based approach. We made a conscious decision to be based in the centre of town, so we were accessible to community but also so we were visible. (P 7)

Many participants expressed that despite the growth of Indigenous-specific services assisting with the integration of Indigenous peoples into the mainstream and the physical presence of some of the community’s infrastructure being visible in the township itself, Indigenous peoples continue to remain on the fringes of town.

Attitudes and Beliefs The dominance of Western culture and the notion of racial superiority still exists. The offer is there for Indigenous peoples to forego their inherent cultural heritage and traditional knowledge and practices to access mainstream, Western culture, values, and morals and succumb to Western or colonial ways of life through integration or assimilation. To submit to assimilation and integrate into mainstream Western society, Indigenous people have had to adapt and modify behaviours and cultural practices to fit in (Eckermann, 2010; Zeldenryk & Yalmambirra, 2006).

There is still a proportion of people who claim they have never met an Indigenous person, even in rural towns like Shepparton, which boasts the largest Indigenous population in the state of Victoria outside Melbourne (Algabonyah Score Card 2017). 132

Well, I think it is slowly changing, the more success we have and showcasing you know, good role models and good things are happening. Behaviours and attitudes are slowly starting to change, but there is still – I wouldn’t say it has changed more than 50% because I would still say more than 50% of the wider community are unaware of Aboriginal people. (P 5)

One participant described the relationship between Indigenous and non-Indigenous people as exploitative, suggesting the relationship is about what can be exploited through the sale of art and athleticism in the sporting world and that there is some interest in a cultural experience: what a cultural ceremony would look like, including dance, food, and traditional music. ‘It’s an exploitive relationship that indicates the rest of society don’t care too much about or value very highly’. (P 7)

These perspectives are consistent with Moreton-Robinson (2005) observation of how, in the Australian context, legal and political institutions gave way to colonial arrogance and resentment towards Indigenous people, stemming from the settlers’ exclusive idea of White supremacy. According to Moreton-Robinson (2005), this fiction provided an alibi for the mistreatment of the country’s original inhabitants, and that story is the foundation on which the relationship was built.

With regard to the Yorta Yorta Native Title, one of the participants talked about the experience from the RFNC perspective:

All the towns that we play against are the towns that opposed us in the Native Title, all the local government and both sides of the river. Perhaps success in that environment in the midst of that doesn’t get lost, and it shouldn’t get lost. With the footy club, we are celebrating in that environment, in an environment where, as a nation, we lost. We felt sure Native Title was our right of acknowledgment as the traditional owners. (P 7)

The lack of recognition and acknowledgment of the value and contribution of Indigenous people in the region is further exemplified when Indigenous leaders are only called on for Indigenous problems, marginalising the value of Indigenous people’s contribution to the region.

So Aboriginal leaders – myself if I get put in that bracket – is about Aboriginal issues, not about mainstream. It’s not about Western or broader issues of the community, so 133

I am not expected to have an opinion on irrigation, horticulture, or agriculture, the need for trains or airports, or there is a need for infrastructure in the region. The attitude is, well, if there is an Aboriginal problem, then we will call you … and you know that just marginalises the value of Aboriginals. (P 7)

This quote illustrates the reluctance of Indigenous community leaders to identify as leaders and continue to question their legitimacy and frustration of being siloed into ‘Indigenous only’ issues where they feel their contribution to other issues affecting the region is not of any worth the broader society.

Participants were asked where they believe broader society gets their perceptions of, or attitude towards, Indigenous people. Responses suggest these are influenced by individual families, what is taught in the education system, and what is portrayed in the media. The three areas identified are what justify past treatment and maintain existing power imbalances.

I think that perspective comes more from home than from education at school. I think the behaviours, social standings and moral beliefs of the historically enfranchised is learned more at home than at school. (P 3)

Another suggesting the wider community get their perspective of Indigenous peoples from home, their parents, and close friends:

I think they are getting more from their social circles, their parents. If you consider the home life we have now, the home life is it just our direct family to the people that we socialise with daily, weekly, fortnightly – that’s what we could consider as being our home life as opposed to work life. So, at school, it’s their teachers, it’s their peers, but at home, it’s their mum and dad, it’s their grandparents, their family, and their family friends. It’s people who have an impact on their growing up and development other than their teachers. (P 1)

Another participant agreed racism is taught from home rather than at school but raised concern about the curriculum and what students are taught about Indigenous people now:

Absolutely racial and otherwise – for sure, we’ve had experiences of racism. I think that getting it from home. I don’t think it’s taught at school. What they are learning from home was talk to their parents at school as well as handed down from the grandparents at home. Um, but knowing the correct curriculum and knowing my kids’ schooling – our kids were taught that Aboriginals were the first people in Australia. I was taught that James Cook discovered Australia. My parents were taught that James 134

Cook discovered Australia. It’s not that way anymore; it’s a change in the curriculum. (P 19)

Whereas this participant was adamant the media portrays Indigenous peoples negatively and expressed frustration at having to address the issue:

Because that’s all they’ve seen is on media, negative media. Look at the, I have it come up ... or I bring it up – Adam Goode’s on the football field. Why is that happening? And they really don’t understand where the term ‘ape’ might come from. Where’s that a throwback too? You know, why is that ape, chimp, monkey come out for aboriginal footballers? They’re saying it, they’re doing it, but they don’t actually think it connects to something like we’re animals. I don’t think they really understand what they’re saying half the time until you pull them up and explain it to them. (P 13)

These accounts highlight the importance of offering rich, truthful accounts of Indigenous people’s experiences in schools, particularly about Indigenous histories in Australia. For example, the curriculum taught in history classes around the country is that Captain Cook was a hero who ‘discovered’ Australia and murdered the noble savages, a protagonist who conquered the world. Hartwig (1973) argued ‘that such neglect reflected a cult of forgetfulness and disrespect’ (cited in Eckermann, 2010, p. 17). This messaging reinforces the devaluing of the country’s original inhabitants and (re)creates a narrative centred on learned behaviours. This evidences how the rest of society are required to reflect on their own paradigm and identify their own cultural biases and assumptions (Tilley, 2010), which is difficult when mainstream educational materials do not provide alternative perspectives and experiences.

This study indicates perceptions of Indigenous peoples by broader society are derived from home, taught in education, or portrayed in the media. The three areas identified provide the context for why Indigenous people were viewed as inferior and the narrative that was taught and is now being handed down to that generation’s children and their grandchildren. Embedding accurate Indigenous history and sharing cultures must be a priority in and across the curriculum to create a truthful dialogue between Indigenous people and the rest of society. Inclusion of an honest history with regard to Indigenous people in the curriculum provides opportunities for future generations to hear the truth, but also acknowledge and

135

respect the value of Indigenous histories, cultures, and knowledge and the incredible and unique place Indigenous people have to offer the world.

Oh well, from home or from things they have been taught at school – definitely I think back from how my grandparents were treated when they were young, and you know, and the Stolen Generation and that sort of stuff…. The view of government back in the … in the early days. My nan just shared with me recently about… that she was going for stolen wages and I said, ‘Oh yeah, well how much are you going for?’ and she said, ‘Well I worked for a farmer from 9 till 9 for 50 cents a week!’ Now I was just horrified – she was probably treated like a slave, but in them days, that was normal, and I was like, that’s not normal, that’s disgusting, you know. And now I know why our elders advocate for a better future. So non-Indigenous people obviously think that that’s normal … and it’s not. It’s not normal, and it’s not okay. (P 4)

This demonstrates how education can enhance students’ understanding of the history of Indigenous people in Australia – the cultural differences – and teach a sense of acceptance of different cultures. The attitude towards Indigeneity is rarely viewed as a mainstream issue. The attitude has evolved over time and is frequently isolated into Indigenous issues as something that the Indigenous community needs to deal with. The dominant discourse has not been about the consequences of Western morals, values, behaviours, or beliefs towards Indigenous people and non-Indigenous people’s ingrained perception of Indigenous people since invasion.

Perception Versus Reality Many factors influence Indigenous Australians’ overall quality of life, health, and wellbeing. Some are within an individual, family, or community group’s control, but most are not. The history and experience of Indigenous Australians are associated with transgenerational trauma and a lack of trust between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians (W. Atkinson, 2013). From a young age, people are programmed to absorb patterns or behaviours from significant people – family, including parents, grandparents, siblings – and the communities in which we live. Exposure to transgenerational trauma from a young age has a significant impact on how we interpret the environment in which we live.

Given centuries of distrust, it is understandably difficult to differentiate between perception and reality. For example, in some circumstances, social exclusion based on the historical 136

narrative can appear as a perceived threat by both cultures. (Moreton-Robinson, 2005, p. 62) describes this from a non-Indigenous perspective, stating:

Up until the 1960’s the white Australia policy adhered to this principle and since its dismantling Australia’s national white identity has been in crisis because of the perceived threat of multiculturalism, even though patriarchal whiteness continues to hold the centre through its unnamed and invisible constituency.

During the invasion and colonisation, racism was a reality (Muecke, 2010). One participant questioned if the perceived threats of racism and discrimination are still prevalent to the same extent today or are they based on past experiences of more than 200 years of abuse, oppression, discrimination, racism, and exclusion:

I often wonder if the things that we are afraid of, you know, racism, the fear of racism that prevents us or stops us. Is it an actual threat or something that we anticipate that might happen, but then it doesn’t? I think it’s a bit of both… (P 18)

The power of belief and perception can skew the interpretation of reality. When one believes and thinks that at any moment, they could be exposed to threats such as racism, it triggers a fight or flight response (Kairuz et al., 2020). ‘Not only tangible risk but our perception of risk creates urgency to personally construct a sense of who we are and what we need to achieve in life, so we can manage these risks’ (Nilan et al., 2007, p. 247). Assessing the impacts and interpreting what is happening is an unconscious process that gives little control over the outcome. The reality is what is happening, regardless of whether it is something that is perceived as such or not. Recognising where to invest in getting the greatest return can be approached in two ways: building resilience and submitting to the external environment; or contesting the prejudices that stem from pre-judging based on intolerance to differences. In this situation, a minority group that has been advocating for an alternative approach for many years without power to influence change begs the question: how one can begin to influence the preconceived beliefs, attitudes, and behaviours of others.

I think we have to decide where our energy is best used. Although we would all pretty much be on the same page, on that levelheaded-ness what we do and how we do it … well, that is a real challenge for us to get the best return for our investments. We know that we are all doing it. We just don’t talk about it enough with each other. We don’t acknowledge it and the pressures; sometimes, those outside influences can just drag 137

you down, and you can get bogged down in their stuff. We don’t have those conversations together enough. We might have them one-on-one, over a cup of coffee in the tearoom, or when we are passing each other. Whenever we normally come together, it is making decisions about stuff we don’t have time to stop and reflect and just talk to each other about how we are going together. We don’t do that enough because there is no space in the way we operate to think about what we are doing and if we can be doing it better. (P 19)

The current cultural sensitivity environment tends to oppress open and honest dialogue in both the Indigenous community and broader communities, especially given the racism engendered by unhelpful interpretation and articulation of sensitive issues. Perception generates thoughts that can, in turn, create reality.

Indigenous Inferiority or White Privilege? The invasion, dispossession, colonisation, displacement, discrimination, and exploitation associated with the British colonial system created societies to protect the interests of the colonisers. The country and all the infrastructure, all of the social, cultural, economic, and political institutions are here to secure their power base. Eckermann (2010) describes this as systemic bias. Systems are created to protect the interests of those who already hold the power—those who do not hold the power struggle to access the same opportunities. The colonisers did not understand, respect, or value the original inhabitants.

I guess as it starts at the moment, you have to establish a baseline. You need to find out where the values currently sit – and at the moment, it’s only ever done by mainstream records, social media or media outlets telling us how things are going and what we value and how that is reflected on this community. You know we let the network tell us how good an event is or the impact that it has had on the region, or even whether it was worthy of taking note. What we should be doing is telling the paper how to write it and what to write about, and maybe that’s our fault because we don’t feel like we are a tool that we can use. Maybe it’s their fault that we don’t feel like we are a tool that we could use. (P 7)

Power, privilege, prosperity, and opportunity have traditionally been assigned to the colonisers, and, as a result, Indigenous people are identified as ‘the problem’ (Dodson, 1994). The colonisers have held the power and privileges and continually propose the solution to ‘the problem’. Pearson (2000a, p. 6) highlights this point:

138

There is a fundamental philosophical outlook change that the left side of politics has yet to undergo. It is to understand that the interests of those on whose behalf the left purports to talk lie not in the perpetuation and justification of people residing at the bottom of Australian society, but they, in fact, have a greater entitlement and they have a greater expectation, and we as a country should face up to a greater aspiration and a greater right on the part of disadvantaged people, and that is the right to engage in the social and economic life of the country.

Having that power maintains access to all the resources and holds the control and authority to make decisions. Indigenous communities have never been afforded power, control, or authority over matters that affect their lives. There must be a shift in the power relations between Indigenous and non-indigenous Australians. The government must relinquish some of its power and privileges and allow Indigenous Australians to share in the wealth and prosperity of the country. The attitudes and misconceptions of the colonisers towards Indigenous people were established upon British arrival. Their attitudes, values, and stereotypes were the foundation of the relationship between Indigenous and non-Indigenous interactions. The belief that was formed about Indigenous peoples upon arrival is still used to justify the position of Indigenous peoples in society today (Eckermann, 2010; J. Harvey, 2007).

The lack of perceived relevance of Indigenous people is exhibited in the Conference of Commonwealth and State Aboriginal Authorities in their outline of an approach to the ‘Indigenous problem’:

This Conference believes that the destiny of the natives of aboriginal origin (sic), but not of the full blood, lies in their ultimate absorption by the people of the Commonwealth, and it therefore recommends that all efforts be directed to that end...The policy of the Commonwealth is to do everything possible to convert the half- caste into a white citizen. (Aboriginal welfare: initial conference of Commonwealth and state Aboriginal authorities 1937)

White privilege provides a different perspective to the persuasion of inferiority. Rather than blaming Indigenous inferiority for the consequential problems experienced by Indigenous peoples, such convictions are founded on prejudice, and cultural bias and are evident in government policy (Eckermann, 2010; Moreton-Robinson, 2005). As a result, the social construction of White privilege is supported by both the bureaucratic process and law (Moreton-Robinson, 2005). ‘White privilege in the situations it’s been consciously handed 139

down, and it’s always been a subconscious decision or outcome’ (P 2). Upon invasion, the dominance of culture and the view of racial superiority was entwined in the establishment of the relationship between the traditional occupants and the British colony.

It’s government impact, but it was a very deliberate impact, and from colonisation it’s always been very strategic on Aboriginal society, a genocide to break down the culture and society from day one, that’s what it was. From the time that Captain Cook declares terra nullius and declares that we are animals or whatever it might have been. He put us on the path there and then. (P 13)

It is often argued that White privilege was founded on the premise of Indigenous inferiority and White superiority. It:

relied on the well-established and widely-accepted view that we were inferior to white Australians, that our way of life, our culture, and our languages were substandard ... Embedded within the policy of assimilation was a clear expectation of the cultural extinction of Indigenous peoples.’ (Dodson, 1996, p. 4)

Colonial values and beliefs formed the basis of the attitude and, ultimately, the position of Indigenous people (Eckermann, 2010). The attitude of the colonisers towards Indigenous people is where the position originated and where it continues to be affected. Suppose one was to flip the lens from a purely Indigenous deficit point of view and acknowledge the contribution of White supremacy and privilege. In that case, one participant proposes ‘that they [non-Indigenous peoples] are offering us access to their culture, but we have to modify our behaviours and drop our cultural practices to be involved’ (P 7). There is still evidence of that rationale of racial superiority and White supremacy signifying Indigenous practices, and Indigenous culture is really about ingratitude and unappreciation or non-recognition of the value Indigenous peoples have.

I honestly think, and I suppose this is from working alongside the Shepparton City Council and other non-Indigenous organisations who get Indigenous funding. You know they can’t just tick a box to say they are working with the Aboriginal community if they aren’t. You know or say, they know of Rumba Co-op or Lulla’s, and it’s just tokenistic. In the last couple of years, I’ve actually had a voice about that because I didn’t know how to address it. I think about how they were using us – was it tokenistic, or were they just using the system to better them? So, now it’s like, well, if you are ticking it, especially the organisations that I am involved with who get Indigenous

140

funding and I sit on a panel, I actually ask that question to the groups that are applying for, you know millions, of dollars: ‘Well okay, what are you actually doing with the Aboriginal community and how do you see that working?’ And that challenges them sometimes because they think – well, they must think that they are doing it right under their organisational structure, but sometimes it’s not. So, it’s kind of making them accountable for the money. (P 2)

This quote is symptomatic of the remnants of what Noel Pearson refers to as the ‘old mainstreaming disaster’ (Eckermann, 2010, p. 30), where some of the Indigenous services were outsourced to mainstream organisations. This exemplifies the level of thinking around the value of Indigenous people and the powerlessness experienced by Indigenous peoples. The second part of this quote focuses on Indigenous leaders taking control and challenging mainstream organisations that have Indigenous-specific funding.

Indigenous people living on Yorta Yorta country are a minority, only making up approximately 5% of the total population (Algabonyah Score Card 2017). They have been forced to abide by the dominant society’s rules and regulations, laws, and policies that have been made for and about Indigenous people without Indigenous people contributing to their formulation.

Repositioning value involves changing the status quo in the spirit of reconciliation and self- determination. Mainstream and Western constructs can shift perception and beliefs and lead to a sheer lack of respect and appreciation for the value of what different cultures can contribute to the region. From the participants’ perspectives, teaching acceptance and embedding respect is needed to dismantle the power and the privilege that the dominant culture created:

Non-Aboriginal people historically have always been felt and viewed as a higher society, so those views come from a historical standpoint. It’s always been easier, it’s always been ... like White privilege in the situations, it’s been consciously handed down, and it’s always been a subconscious decision or outcome. (P 9)

The colonial narrative about the inferiority of Indigenous Australians is believed to provide some justification for the mistreatment and injustice inflicted on Indigenous people by Europeans since invasion (Eckermann, 2010; Reynolds, 1999). To maintain the socially constructed privileged power position in Australian society, the dominant group will continue to deny Indigenous people access to power or privilege. 141

In the White world, money is more important than people. Sir Doug Nicholls and Uncle William Cooper, that is why they were so clever – because they understood all that. It is like sometimes you hear the old people say, ‘you know how you track an emu’ or ‘you have got to play the White man’s game’ and these are just new words, repositioning value and repositioning social, blah, blah, blah. They are new ways of saying how do you play the White man’s game and be his equal? You know, it is exactly the same message as to what the old people used to talk about. It is just a different language used to do it. It is how do we become equal and become par with these fellas? How do we get them to see that investing in us is good in terms of economic development? I don’t know. They have got to change. (P 5)

In this context, white culture is the dominant culture within this society. The Indigenous community cannot continue to work solely within its cultural realms because it has no currency, no economic or cultural capital to bargain with (Germov & Poole, 2007). The two sayings the participant mentioned above refer to learning their ways. Whether it is tracking an emu or playing the White man’s game, it is about studying and understanding their behaviours to know how best to engage with them.

Until the 1960s, Indigenous people were denied the right to a Western education, including learning to read and write, which meant they had significantly limited tools to negotiate with the colonisers who had no intention of learning to communicate with them. When William Cooper was the secretary of the Australian Aborigines League (AAL) in the 1930s, he wrote numerous letters to all levels of government because he was able to express himself in the dominant colonial language confidently (Attwood & Markus, 1998). One has to change something from within; it cannot be done from the outskirts.

Indigenous Australians live in a country known for its multiculturalism, and their cultural differences are accepted and sometimes celebrated. Yet Indigenous Australians are still not afforded respect, acknowledgment, and are not celebrated:

It is the cause and effect. It’s a reaction to events that have occurred and beliefs and cultures that have been imposed, and it has notions of racial superiority attached to it. Which, you know, is still the aftermath of the White Australia Policy, and you are still questioning if we have come out of that. I reckon the construct of Aboriginal has been in the knowledge of mainstream has been developed under those two policies. The first

142

is the White Australia policy, and the other is the Assimilation Policy. The construct of Aboriginal is in that space as to how it gets interpreted. (P 9)

There is really no sense that the colonisers needed to understand the culture or philosophies that supported the economies of Indigenous people at the point of dispossession; it was irrelevant to the British colonial system. That lack of relevance persists. Indigenous people are continually modifying behaviours to adapt and to fit into the dominant culture. However, the resistance of Indigenous people is what comes out in the statistics that describe the profile of Indigenous people: ‘Indigenous people have resisted and are still resisting the notion of colonisation and assimilation’ (P 7). The statistics tell a story about the position of Indigenous people in Australia being disadvantaged. The story is a result of the past and can be acquitted to the long-term effect of transgenerational trauma at the hand of invasion, dispossession, and the overall lack of opportunities. Some generations were denied basic human rights such as housing, health, education, and employment because of the notion of racial superiority, not because Indigenous people were inferior or not capable of any of those things (Moreton- Robinson, 2005). It is because White Australia excluded Indigenous people from society in general, which in turn excluded them from the economy (McConnochie, Hollinsworth, & Pettman, 1988). The terms of colonisers have typically dictated the terms of Indigenous people’s participation in governance and the distribution of power and privilege. Participants in the case study interviews recognised the resultant oppression of Indigenous people and the need for new Indigenous-led paradigms to support self-determination and better outcomes.

Challenging the Status Participants reflected that currently, there is no design, plan, or framework for the future to challenge the status of Indigenous peoples in the country. Instead, the plan for Indigenous communities has been and is still to react to whatever policies or priorities the government sets and do whatever the community needs to do to access government funding or the bucket of money that is being put out for the taking. Whether it is justice, health, or education, participants explained that the community does what they can to try to translate governments’ priorities into a quasi-economy that supports Indigenous families and the community. ‘It's a bit perverse because unless you have a deficit group of people in high need, 143

you are not going to have infrastructure or support to deal with the issues’ (P 5). In this sense, the government has conditioned Indigenous communities to build economies off selling disadvantage and thus what was described by participants as the ‘merry-go-round’ or ‘wheel’, implying they are caught in the cycle of disadvantage. ‘Well, we do that, you know, sell disadvantage because we need the money, we need the rations, we need that relationship with the mission manager and the rations (P 10). One participant shared what it was like living on missions. Explaining it was described to them by one of their family members as ‘the best time of her life, and I think that’s true. Everywhere you go, people talk about the connectivity between Aboriginal people and the communal behaviour of Aboriginal people and the support they felt for each other’ (P 7). However, there has been a fragmentation described as ‘in some part, one of the effects of government interventions. As a result, people feel very isolated in their groups’ (P 17). Overall, the community has been passive in their engagement with each other and with government, and participants identified this as a real challenge that must be addressed. Non-Aboriginal people see that there is a commodity or a means to make money off of our disadvantages. For us to be empowered, we have to flip the thinking and change the policies and terminologies and the whole context of who we are. And just remind people: listen, we are the landlords here. Remember you come in by ship or plane or whatever. You can always go back to where you come from. We can’t. (P 4)

Irrespective of the merits or shortfalls of any individual policies, the legislative and policy framework regarding the rights of Indigenous people and the obligations of government at the Commonwealth, State, and local level is unnecessarily complicated. The solution to those complexities requires fundamental structural change that recognises the need for self- determination centred on a transfer of power. One participant referred to the United Nations laws concerning the status of Indigenous peoples living on Yorta Yorta Country and likened the situation to that of torture: There is a law out there. We need to utilise it – their law against them. We need to use United Nations as an instrument to highlight the colonisation tactics that have always been overlayed over everything that we do. It’s ongoing. It’s like that programming and that ... it’s like torture. You know, when you are thinking about it until you can jump off that treadmill and find your own space in your own setting, it is like being tortured. And that is a tactic of colonisation. It’s reprogramming who we are all the 144

time. For us to reposition who we are, we need to come together and feel strong as individuals, as families and then as a community. It is a three-way approach. (P 4)

While the Australian Constitution empowers the Commonwealth Parliament to make laws regarding Indigenous affairs, there is no single overarching piece of legislation that establishes or enshrines the rights of Indigenous peoples, despite Australia being a signatory to the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Increasingly, participants described how the community finds itself relying on individual relationships with key champions within the bureaucracy to drive change for Indigenous people in the region, rather than utilising policy and legislative frameworks intended to support Indigenous people. Many participants identified education as being a key vehicle to address negative stereotypes towards Indigenous people: Education. It has to be the education system. I think for here in our region, definitely the Kaiela Dungala First Nations Peoples curriculum. And the Department of Education and Training making a commitment to schools in the region will challenge some people, but … I think the outcome that we have has been … well, 300 teachers wanting to sign up for professional development and wanting to do more. (P 3)

Another participant talked about the impact of school, parents, the press and the media. ‘I think the teaching of negative stereotypes about Aboriginal people as much comes through some parents and definitely comes through the press and the media’ (P 14). However, the same participant goes on to say Indigenous people should not shoulder the responsibility to change the attitudes, beliefs, and perceptions of the rest of society: It’s not our responsibility to address people’s ignorance and racism. That’s what we … I think for us; it is leading by example, and the majority of Aboriginal people I know are good people. The majority of Aboriginal children grow up in loving families. Aboriginal parents have the same aspiration for us to go to school, get a good education, get a good job, and own your own home. From my understanding, that is the common belief of Aboriginal families, and it is about leading by example. I may be pushing the envelope, but the responsibility for addressing the racism and ignorance is not our responsibility. It is White Australians’ responsibility. We can show them the errors of their way, but ultimately it is their responsibility. (P 14)

Clearly, ignorance and racism still exist, and the Indigenous community bears the responsibility to address it because they are the ones most affected by it.

145

It is time, though, to sharpen our conversations about racism. Race relations across Western democracies have grown more strained. Xenophobia and intolerance are on the rise, fuelled by far-right political movements. (AHRC, 2017)

Racism will never be addressed while Indigenous people are left with the responsibility of changing. Minority groups cannot be expected to adapt to and assume the lives of the dominant culture; rather, the dominant culture needs to become more tolerant, respectful and accepting of other cultures. The community’s ability to invest in cultural affirmation and celebration was another area identified to effect change. However, it has not been met with receptiveness from mainstream, and that seems to be consistent with the narrative in terms of the broader society’s understanding and acknowledgment of the value of the Indigenous community. The opportunity for celebration, cultural affirmation wasn’t happening, and very limited cultural expression, so we’ve been addressing that. The institute and KRIC or SPPU, back then we established a lot of things, like the footy club, VACCHO, the women’s group, and Kaiela Arts were around cultural celebration, forcing the celebration and a part of the language revitalisation, pushing hard on affirming our sense of culture and identity in a very hostile and ignorant environment. That’s been the catalyst, I suppose, as to how do you inspire vision and inspire people to make a difference. I’ll just keep pressing on that notion of celebration even if people don’t want to celebrate with you. (P 7)

Part of the thinking is around sustaining the local Indigenous community and cultural knowledge and practices and not giving in to the notion of assimilation of Indigenous peoples into the broader society to ensure the sustainability for future generations living on country.

LANGUAGE Languages are the foundation on which cultures are created. Languages distinguish peoples, provide identity and make language speakers a part of unique groups. (de Varennes & Kuzborska, 2016, p. 1)

Language and Cultural Resilience and Cultural Competency

Indigenous people’s identity is constantly evolving to reflect the people, place, culture and language (Eckermann, 2010). Traditional owner groups from around the world acknowledge the importance of cultural continuity, including traditional language, to the survival of their 146

people and reaffirm the importance of language to health. We are now seeing the revitalisation of traditional language in Australia, particularly on the east coast, where the traditional languages were almost lost. Where grandmothers and grandfathers could speak fluent traditional language, but that language was lost with the next generation of mothers and fathers, it is now being bought back to life.

Indigenous missions saw Indigenous cultural practices forbidden, and Indigenous people were not allowed to speak traditional language or practice song lines because that culture and those innate traditional practices did not hold anything of value to dominant Western civilisation or society. The counteroffer was to embrace Western culture and to learn and live in Christian faith, and, in effect, assimilate into White Australia.

I think they can’t understand why we wouldn’t want to assimilate, why we wouldn’t want to adopt the values of Christianity and Western culture. They say that is their offer to us. I think that’s it, and I think that um they’re … they feel that we are a dependant body of people on the taxpayer funds and that we are not making enough of a concerted effort to modify our behaviours, so they don’t have to spend the taxpayer money on crisis. It is still blaming, not taking any responsibility but blaming Aboriginal people for their own position, for being in the position we are in. (P 12)

Language Is a Tool

Language as a communication tool is critical in the balance of power, and influence has been used to disempower and to suppress Indigenous people. Language can be used as a form of abuse, subtle and direct, overt and covert. When coupled with power and knowledge, language can be a formidable tool; it can be used to destroy our spirit and sense of mastery. It is used adversely in political and social relationships and relationships between bureaucracy and service providers and the people in need. (P 7)

Stan Grant argues that ‘Australia has invented a whole new language to avoid the truth. We say this land was settled, not invaded. We say Indigenous people were dispossessed, not that our land was stolen’ (Grant, 2020). Words like uncivilised, terra nullius, quarter cast or half cast and octoroon (Anderson, 2003; Dodson, 2003) and similar terms describe a policy intent

147

in the Australian political landscape. Paul Briggs was quoted in the local newspaper describing the political use of language and the impact on Aboriginal communities, stating:

The Australian political world and the respective institutions develop and use language like a surgeon might use a scalpel to remove not only the rights of Yorta Yorta people but the expression of our spirit. ‘‘The health of the Yorta Yorta people starts with you. It starts with a change of knowledge and attitude in your family and social circles, amongst your peers and amongst your professional relationships. (Witoslawski, 2018)

The historical use of deficit language to describe Indigenous people as dependents who carry little value continues today. Language identifies who we are and where we come from; it is used to pass on knowledge, to tell stories and express feelings. Language is also used to create a narrative, to share and teach that narrative to generations.

When we use that language ... the English language, to tell a story to our children, we have to remember the unique position from which it comes and make a decision about the story that we want those children to know about being Indigenous. Is that story about the strength and resilience, about strong culture, despite the challenges, about kinship, dreaming, art, and ceremony, about a rich culture worth celebrating? (P 10)

Those stories must be from the Indigenous perspective and not reminiscent of the White colonial perception of Indigenous peoples.

There are generations that are still here that hold the stories from our grandparents and great grandparents, some of the traditional stories and languages. As much of Indigenous history has been passed down orally, it is important to the nation that these languages are protected and preserved. (P 7)

Sustaining Indigenous language is critically important. As the above quote suggests, traditional language and stories such as Dreamtime stories are passed down orally, and the community must work together to find a way to capture, protect, and preserve these for future generations.

Invest in Sustaining Indigenous Culture and Traditional Language After four decades of working on the region’s prosperity plan, there has been significant progress. The resurrection of pride and cultural renaissance does not go unnoticed when

148

young people share the spirit of traditional Yorta Yorta language or when emerging leaders perform Acknowledgment of Country in the language of their ancestors. It awakens the spirits of the ancestors. It is the language that was spoken for over fifty thousand years, and then it went silent. But now, there is a revitalisation, and it speaks to and is being heard by traditional owners again. With the re-emergence of traditional language, the voices of the ancestors ignite the innate spiritual connection to culture, land, and the Old People. With it comes the hope of sustaining the unique cultural knowledge and heritage so it can be passed on to future generations. Speaking and hearing traditional language is good for the spiritual wellbeing of community. It is a reminder of the past and affirms a sense of belonging. Everyone is responsible for investing in and supporting the local community to sustain culture and language as a priority.

Crucial parts of Indigenous disadvantage and poor outcomes on almost every measure are ongoing social exclusion, marginality, and apparent powerlessness experienced by Indigenous community members in the GM region from the wider society. Substantial gains in this area have been achieved in recent decades.

The Koori Resource and Information Centre, followed by the Shepparton Policy and Planning Unit, now known as the Kaiela Institute, has led the way with over forty years building the capacity to translate seemingly impossible dreams into reality time and time again for the betterment of Indigenous people. (P 10)

The vision behind their ambitions has raised the standards and expectations for Indigenous people to hold their rightful place in this community.

Actual and perceived racism and discrimination continue to contribute to the marginalisation and consequential position of Indigenous peoples within the wider society, as well as being directly linked to overall poor health, wellbeing, and quality of life (Mellor, 2003; Pedersen et al., 2006; Williams, Neighbors, & Jackson, 2003). This is reflected in the experience of local Indigenous organisations such as the RFNC. Rather than the Murray Football League (MFL) celebrating its uniqueness as the only league in regional Victoria to have an Indigenous owned and run club and being a leader in pioneering Reconciliation, there is little acknowledgment of the potential gains of having Rumbalara as a member. Instead, there is a constant

149

undertone of Rumbalara being ‘different’, contributing to a deficit in the league's status. ‘On- field incidents receive a different level of scrutiny when Rumbalara is involved based on and reinforcing notions of deficit which incite anger and entrench stereotypes’ (P 7).

For the past ten years, the Kaiela Institute and Yorta Yorta Nation Aboriginal Cooperation (YYNAC) have been leading the Yarrwul Nyuwandan Social Inclusion Project (R. Nelson, 2014). The project itself was discussed in detail in Chapter Two. The partnership consists of a wide coalition of Indigenous and non-indigenous organisations, including the City of Greater Shepparton, Department of Education and Early Childhood Development, Department of Health, University of Melbourne Rural Health Academic Centre, Rumbalara Football Netball Club, Rumbalara Indigenous Cooperative, and Gallery Kaiela.

I don’t think we put enough effort into infrastructure that serves us. Like schools and education centres and businesses, industry, I think there is in a design piece they would be the sorts of cultural behaviours that you want to shift and how you would go about shifting those behaviours and knowledge is one of the keys to that. I think that is why the Munarra Centre is so important. It is to be able to build a systematic approach that everyone is involved in from early childhood to the faculties in universities. So that when those leaders are graduating and coming out into the community, they are already informed to a point where they understand what their role is. (P 9)

The education sector has a key role in promoting a socially inclusive and culturally respectful curriculum. This curriculum should acknowledge and teach Indigenous history, culture, and knowledge systems in partnership with local Indigenous communities in a way that brings the best of Indigenous and non-Indigenous pedagogies together to maximise learning opportunities for both Indigenous and non-Indigenous students.

CHAPTER SUMMARY This Yorta Yorta Nation has a vision for the Indigenous community to be integrated into the community where their rights are identified and supported, and their diverse contribution is valued and celebrated. Their high aspirations are pursuing opportunities to build on capabilities to invoke choice and prosperity and to reposition the social, cultural, and economic value of Indigenous people living on Yorta Yorta country. The Yorta Yorta concept of repositioning value exposes the ascribed lack of value and respect towards Indigenous

150

peoples. The devaluing of Indigenous people has its roots in colonisation, and the injustice has never been addressed. Indigenous peoples lack the respect and understanding of the value from the wider Australian perspective. If culture is considered from the point of shared culture and the concept of nationhood and the multi-generational and multi-layered discrediting of Indigenous society and the systematic dismantling of the value of Indigenous people, there is a point of interest not defined by the characterisation of poverty when measured against other cultures, including White Australians. It must be viewed through the lens of White privilege and acknowledge the crippling agenda of overt and covert notions of racial superiority and investigate the place of the ignorance of human rights as a base for policy and strategy. Social status is aligned with social power and is evident in the accessibility of social, cultural, political and economic power and the ability for community groups to reposition it. It is clear the Indigenous community still feel segregated and isolated from the broader community, and although the majority of Indigenous people live in the townships, they remain on the fringes. The attitudes and beliefs towards Indigenous people in the region have not substantially shifted. Community members still feel the impact of exclusion and racism, but most agree it is as much about White privilege as it is about the notion of Indigenous inferiority. The regional approach aims to challenge the status quo and be a driver of parity in the life expectancy and quality of life of Indigenous peoples through their concept of repositioning the social, cultural, and economic value in the pursuit of sustaining Indigenous knowledge and cultural expression, including Yorta Yorta language and identity.

151

CHAPTER SIX – YORTA YORTA ALGABONYAH (INDIGENOUS COMMUNITY)

OVERVIEW This chapter focuses specifically on the Yorta Yorta Indigenous community. It identifies what participants perceived as the community’s key strengths and successes and how to continue building on those strengths. The chapter then defines the central challenges and barriers the community has faced and the leaders’ responses to overcoming or addressing those challenges to move towards the region’s prosperity plan.

Understanding the complexities and demands of Indigenous leadership and leaders working in the Indigenous community is important. Therefore, this chapter explores how participants define leadership and how leadership evolves in Indigenous communities. What constitutes good leadership and what participants perceive as the community’s strengths and challenges in terms of leadership for the region are explored. The chapter also covers how the participants working in community leadership positions balance the requirements of mainstream and the expectations of community while maintaining cultural values and how they navigate situations of potential conflict, tension, and ambiguity.

The Indigenous community continues to grapple with a lack of acknowledgment, understanding, empathy, and Indigenous people's rights (Eckermann, 2010; Pedersen et al., 2006; Social Justice Report. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Justice Commissioner, 2009). A ‘blame the victim’ mentality continues to see Indigenous people subjected to derogatory stereotyping and alienation (Pedersen et al., 2006). Being the target of social exclusion by a socially constructed discourse that antagonises the rest of society against Indigenous Australians has resulted in a lack of progress or improvement in the overall health and wellbeing of Indigenous peoples, including social, cultural, and economic devaluing (Mellor, 2003; Pedersen et al., 2004).

One participant argued that Indigenous people continue to suffer at the hands of a paternalist, benevolent, do-gooders’ approach, stating: ‘benevolence alone does not build a relationship based on trust and integrity between two groups (P 20). For a long period, Indigenous people were segregated from the rest of Australia, forced onto reservations and missions, and government policies were based on protection. Indigenous people no longer 152

want or need protection. They believe when working together to achieve a shared goal or vision, the relationship must be in the spirit of reciprocity and respect and progress will only be made when Indigenous people are a valued part of the decision-making process and that the approach is not to save the ‘poor Aboriginal people’. Indigenous people on Yorta Yorta country have a strong sense of who they are and where they come from, ‘having maintained our sense of identity and sense of belonging to traditional homelands and to the experience and stories of our ancestors’ (P 9). Despite the persistent challenges over generations, the Yorta Yorta have maintained a relationship with country, with land, and a strong sense of identity and spirituality that is as deeply dependent on them to sustain that connection.

For the past two centuries … we’ve inadvertently been transitioned through immense change and our entire being and existence has been about survival and then to adapt and to evolve. Western Christianity was bought in, and a lot of our generational thinking now, from a spirituality perspective, is tied to those Christian beliefs and values. (P 7)

Indigenous people had a strong economy that supported their livelihoods for tens of thousands of years (Pascoe, 2014); however, that changed. Reconstructing an economy that is based on an innate sense of identity and place and Indigenous people’s relationships with the land underpins a sense of future for the community.

If we have aspirations or a vision about how we act as Yorta Yorta people, but we also have a responsibility for national engagement with government or mainstream or even international, like our relationship with the Navaho, for example, then what’s our place in that? (P 7)

Setting an agenda for the Yorta Yorta people requires the development of planning processes that harness community strengths and identify appropriate directions for the future. Some trends have developed that need to be addressed, including acknowledging the past and planning for the future as well as the now, assessing where the community is at, the current behaviours and practices, and what the community wants moving forward.

I think my concern about our community moving forward is that, like the White government in closing the gap, we are addressing the wrong lines of parity. Instead of closing the gap between us and White Australia, we should be closing the gap between us and Black Australia. That means getting ourselves closer to our own families and

153

our own culture and our own networks before we try and get close to the White one. (P 1)

Sustaining cultural identity is a key measure of prosperity for this community. The push and pull of constantly transitioning between the two cultural interfaces are evident. Maintaining Indigenous identity should not be a barrier to be a part of the broader society. This suggests it is not possible to have prosperity and strong cultural identity because the two are individually exclusive. The above quote also exposes the fragmentation in the relationships within the Indigenous community. Division among community members hinders the community’s ability to move towards a collective vision needs to be addressed. Such legitimate concerns about the lack of harmony within family and community groups pose a real challenge in the community’s pursuit of self-governance and political independence. Expectations about the likelihood of consensus amongst the community continue to drive notions of regional representation and their prosperity plan.

SPIRITUAL DEPRIVATION OF LAND – YORTA YORTA NATIONS NATIVE TITLE Native Title was raised as a challenge and a contributor to the internal politics impacting the community’s ability to build a collective vision to work towards. Langton (2019, p. 1) maintains:

One of the most important and fascinating aspects of the debate about Aboriginal rights in the last two decades revolves around the legal personality of the Aboriginal polity, by which I mean the recognition of that social complex that is sometimes called sovereignty. Aboriginal people in Australia have continued to argue that just as British sovereignty did not wipe away Aboriginal title, neither did it wipe away Aboriginal jurisdiction. This is the logic of the many Aboriginal proponents of a treaty or treaties between the modern Australian state and Aboriginal peoples. Native Title is more than legal acknowledgement and allocation of parcels of lands to traditional owners. The identity of Indigenous people is intrinsically linked to the Country of their ancestors, whether or not one was conceived, born, and raised on. It is the geographical location on a map, but it holds the songlines and sense of spiritual connection to the past, the present, and the future of Indigenous owner groups (ATSIC 1998; Zeldenryk 2006). Traditional lands are the most important element; they are a sense of belonging

154

that holds the stories of dreaming, of the ancestors, and those who have come before us and those who are still to come. And look, really, what they’ve done is destroyed Yorta Yorta nations in that sense in one way because they set it up for failure and then once it was done, they moved on and negotiated with every other tribes in the State, but Yorta Yorta’s been totally out of all of that, so they just haven’t progressed. And then you put that with the other group as well and their issues, they haven’t progressed at all, but the rest have, so you’ve got big business starting to happen out of Dja Dja wurung and down Gunnai Kurnai, but it’s very political to talk about the issues for our traditional owners. Except to say that I don’t think they’re broad enough in their membership, in their approach, in their staffing, in their transparency, so that the community feel like they can be part of that. It’s really the leadership of a handful of people all the time that’s the real shame. I think we see that in a few of the organisations. (P 13) Watching the Native Title claim for Yorta Yorta back when, and up until observing the treaty proves that is being undertaken at the moment – I remember the time, the pressure, the topic of conversation around any table we ever sat at. It was weird; everyone was in the one category. You shook hands with people you didn’t know, and you waved at a stranger in the street just because they were Black. It was really distressing when the finding was handed down. No land rights; the depression and division grew and was created almost instantly at the time. It was almost bizarre. (P 1) Despite the challenges following the Native Title outcome, the community has continued to challenge leaders in the region for a more strategic approach to Indigenous futures:

Although we are slowly being dealt with to some degree, in the main part, it’s been rejected, and I think Native Title and all of that was the biggest form of public rejection. We have stayed at the helm of that to say, well, we just can’t accept that rejection. We have to work out how we mitigate that and move forward for our own needs and our own sustainability and cultural identity and force and push on issues of ownership of the region and ownership of towns like Shepparton that have to figure out how we do cultural expression and cultural affirmation within that environment. (P 7) Another participant shared their frustration with the slow progress and lack of willingness of local council and regional leaders to engage in the conversation, suggesting:

An audit of whether or not the community was seeing a change in terms of the readiness of local council and regional leadership to listen and engage with the

155

Indigenous community, you would see some success. However, if you are looking at constitutional reforms and inclusion of Indigenous sovereignty or the recognition of sovereignty for Indigenous people in the region, you would see no success. (P 17) This community is still trying to identify how to impact social change that addresses racism and challenges the policies to address Indigenous disadvantage in the region questioning;

‘how you live inside communities that are inherently racist or ignorant because they have never been given the opportunity through curriculum and design to challenge this notion of assimilation, so we have got a big task’. (P 5) Whether the community has the right model is still unknown. However, the hardest task is to look outside the day-to-day bureaucracy, service agreements, and government priorities and fight for a different approach, and that is the work they have done. It is a start, and it is a community initiative that they are trialling. It may not be perfect, but it is a proposal that is up for consultation and discussion and will evolve and change as necessary.

We have to resist to the best of our ability, resist to get consumed by bureaucracy, service agreements and contracts and government, so you become another avenue for the Liberal government direction. We don’t really have security of independent income, and that creates a challenge. (P 5)

LEADERSHIP The Yorta Yorta have a proud history and legacy of Indigenous leadership, celebrating some of the country's most prominent and influential people. Noel Pearson suggests:

There is no other tribe in Aboriginal Australia who has produced more important leaders than the Yorta Yorta. There have been many that might be a show, but historically, and truly, this particular tribe has contributed more important leaders in the history of the Aboriginal struggle in Australia than any other in the country. (Pearson, 2014) Leadership emerged from the study as both a key challenge and a strength. The depth of leadership can be an invaluable source of strength or weakness in Indigenous community development. The strengths are evident: with the right leadership, the community can thrive. However, leadership can also cripple communities if the purpose is about personal power.

The Yorta Yorta legacy of leadership dates back to the 1800’s and has been attributed to Thomas Shadrach James, the teacher from Maloga and Cummeragunja, who went above and

156

beyond the call of duty to ensure his students were given the best possible opportunity to thrive.

It has been stated by many over the years that Grampa was a great teacher to our children and adults on Maloga and Cummeragunga, both in his classroom and in the Scholars Hut. In fact, many of his students went on to great things in the Australian political scene. How did Aboriginal students from Cummeragunga take such an enormous leap? We suggest that it was no accident at all, but a clever, calculated and systematic approach taken by Grampa to empower Aboriginal people to become great leaders and writers. And that’s exactly what many became! Our opinion comes from a letter we have found, which was written by Grampa on 28 August 1891, to Thomas Pearson Esq, the then Inspector of Schools. He advised that he was seeking a promotion and provides in his own words the reasons why he is deserving of this promotion. We know this is true as we look today at the wide range of powerful leaders who came out of his schoolroom and Scholars Hut. It’s a who’s who of Aboriginal politics in Australia in the early 1900s. Aboriginal men and women whose writing and leadership skills were second to none had stepped directly out of his Scholars Hut on the Mission and onto the Australian political stage. And they weren’t alone. There were so many others who led quietly on a local community level, still showing great leadership in their families and communities. They may not have been the public faces of the community, but they were there working quietly behind the scenes using their writing skills to seek justice for our people in their letters to politicians and newspapers. (G. E. Nelson & Nelson, 2014, p. np).

Although the legacy of leadership is something the Yorta Yorta people are most proud of, the current state of leadership has been identified as the root cause of some of the community’s greatest challenges, as described by many of the participants of this study:

Leadership. Obviously, to get the right leadership up, coupled with a better vision. There are leadership decisions made because there are some leaders up there amongst those ranks that have been involved in pushing things along, but it’s their reasons for doing it, and they aren’t good reasons, and everybody knows it. I am just thinking they (the community) are just going to have to do it. But there are going to be some leaders that are just not going to be a part of the leadership going forward because they carry history with them that people just won’t forget, and they shouldn’t be rewarded for their bad behaviour. (P 3)

Participants spoke openly and frankly about the rewards, challenges, and sacrifices required of Indigenous leaders working in the community. They offered robust critiques of the current state of leadership and the approach or lack of approach to working in collaboration towards a sense of collective vision and purpose. 157

I think in relation to the leadership, it is not enough of bringing information back and being able to have a think tank around. I mean, our leaders are working and negotiating in big settings, and I really feel for them in that – most times, you can’t come back and tell the community what you are doing because there are elements of our community that are working in opposition. There are always opposites, and discourse is something that we haven’t really had a good community discussion around. We haven’t been able to set up mediation tools or a way to come together and talk through things and government like that. The government loves that because then that’s a way to get some of their programs. We can’t reposition ourselves until we are all working for the same thing. (P 4)

All participants ascribed the lack of community collaboration and community politics as a critical challenge for this community moving forward. They also acknowledged a lack of formal power and decision-making abilities in both the community and funding settings as a key problem:

I think society reminds us about that [lack of power], whether it’s in the media or consultations or decision-making stuff, like the council and other things that have decision-making powers and who is making those decisions. It's predominately white people making decisions about… you know, us. I think Aboriginal society sits in Shepparton is that it’s there, it’s a lot more vibrant than other places, but I still think it’s a long way from where it needs to be actively involved in, and not only just in conversations but actively involved in the decision-making processes for the Aboriginal community. Shepparton embraces the Aboriginal culture as a true value commodity like they do with the fruit industry or water or even the multicultural diversity. (P 14)

The lack of a sense of collective future was heavily influenced by the complexities of both internal and external relationships. It is a recurring theme within the community and families as well as external relationships such as local, state, and federal governments. Complexities of networks based on relationships was a prominent feature throughout the interviews. The symbolic relationships are all centred on reciprocal trust, mutual respect, and collaboration.

It’s just a mindset, which I suppose is a barrier, but it’s about changing that mindset in some way. In having respect and processes and trusting people. We just don’t trust anymore. We don’t trust anyone on the board. We don’t trust the CEO. (P 4)

Again, a lack of trust in relationships was evident in the narratives of participants. The history of Indigenous people and non-Indigenous people has justifiably taught communities to 158

proceed with caution. However, the distrust was extended to the Indigenous community and leadership:

after seeing someone like that last CEO, someone that is politically savvy, can really create so much division and destroy what the community is working for and it’s putting a lot of trust in each other, and I don’t know that we’re there, I don’t know that we’ll ever be there. (P 13)

The community has high expectations of its leaders, and the community itself is the strongest critic of leadership among the Indigenous specific organisations. A strong focus is put on the person, their approach and vision, and they are adamant that vision for the community should be developed in consultation and collaboration with them. The power of community should not be underestimated. Without the community's support, this region has seen a high turnover of leadership in recent years. Relationships are also important for the Indigenous community, and leadership relies on a complicated system for maintaining and building on those relationships. Participants emphasised that relationships hinge on trust. Trust is something that must be earned, and building trust, particularly in Indigenous communities, takes time.

Participants shared their views about the transition into leadership and the impact their individual leadership styles have had on their experience. Many found the positives in moving into leadership positions and maintaining elements of cultural connection both from an organisational and a community perspective. However, there are unspoken, unwritten rules and assumptions that govern emerging leaders in the Indigenous community, and the lack of formality and transparency can make it difficult to transition. One participant described leadership as an obligation, not necessarily a personal choice – a role that ‘you sort of grew into’ (P 9), a responsibility to continue the legacy of Indigenous advocacy that they inherited— acknowledging the past leaders and what they have endured for the community to be where it is. Indigenous leadership is a balance between wisdom and knowledge from the past, where decisions predominately get made about the impact on the future. There was a strong sense of responsibility to look after future generations: ‘it’s something you inherit –you have a job and a responsibility to look after people and kids’ (P 5).

159

Another participant described it as a natural progression that occurs without conscious effort or exertion:

Our families just know who to go to. Family just knows. There’s no meeting, no coming out, no debut, no vote. They just go to them, and that’s leadership. They’ve just got it. They ooze it, don’t they? (P 15)

Here, the participant was referring to family leadership, but many of those family leaders appear to progress into community leadership positions naturally. The traditional forms of leadership are often recognised as those in organisations. In comparison to the mainstream, there are few places for Indigenous leadership to thrive. There are only eight key Indigenous organisations in the region and possibly a few Indigenous-owned businesses that operate in a cultural space separate from the mainstream. It is a challenge trying to preserve the space for that leadership to grow with so few positions. It is important to sustain expressions of culture through leadership in those organisations. They are a specific design and leadership that is unique.

It’s the sort of thing that we control in our jobs or in our projects or in our organisations. There are other things that sort of sit on the side that we are reaching for, but we don’t know how to drive it. It's incremental in building that sense of security around what we are actually doing today. Are we on the right path, and do people have a sense of security around their roles and their jobs and the intersect between our organisations? Institutionally, we are operating independently, but we all play sport together, so I think it’s trying to find – well, from my perspective – how we do what we do now and do it well and do we need any extra support. That other trajectory, well, who is going to determine what we do over the next 20 years? How we are going to do it and who is going to do it, and do we have the right leadership tools and skills in place? (P 7)

Individual and organisational values were identified as necessary for leadership:

One thing I see, having recently come into the community, I think we need the board to realign with the values. More collaboration on unified messaging so everyone is talking the same message and context when we are discussing anything across all the organisations. It’s getting everyone on the same page. (P 5)

Alignment and unity from a leadership perspective would see the community working as a collective instead of in silos. ‘You only get bits and pieces of information of things that are

160

happening here and there, but if there was a better line of communication and transparency as a collective, so we are on the same page and can support each other’ (P 15).

Because most ACCOs currently continue to operate in isolation in an environment that is designed to only deal with their individual silos, it is difficult to see the big picture. Unpacking the bigger picture will help identify areas of improvement. Not having an open conversation about the impacts of operating in an environment that is designed to only deal with the here and now clearly prevents planning for how to do things better.

… because when you operate in isolation, you learn how to cope, and maybe you are not coping to the best of your ability, but you are coping until such time a process is introduced, and you realise then it could be better. As a community, we have learned how to cope on the fringe and in the silos, and even organisationally, we have learned how to do it, so it’s like a debrief and a process to say, well, what do we understand we are doing, can we be supported to do it better, whatever it is. I think our coping mechanism and our behaviours are turned into the culture or the environment that we operate in, and we tend to sit independent of everyone else. (P 7)

Challenges identified, particularly with the sense of responsibility, the conflict, the negativity, the internal division, and the pressure of operating daily in a deficit environment. For example, there was a strong emphasis on the impact community leadership can have on participants’ personal and family life:

Given the events of the last, not two years, it’s 2014 is when our fight started to bring change in governance in our community. I think we’ve been broken. To look around now, we are a broken community, so to find strengths is really hard, except to say when you have the people out there who are fighters, who are resilient, who will stand up no matter what. Most are fearful of the impact that’ll have on them, their wellbeing, or their family, so that just throws back to how our people retaliate if you do stand up as well – the retaliation. (P 13)

Recent events resulting in what was described as ‘unstable leadership’ in two of the major community organisations have created tension in the community. The research was undertaken during a period of significant leadership change, and some participants were still carrying the burden. Regardless, the conflict between community is being felt, and connectivity and communal behaviours are being tried and tested. Key components of

161

Indigenous leadership are looking after relationships and ensuring the community is connected. Leaders are a part of the community, and community is always central to the decision-making process. This is one of the differences between Western and traditional leaders. For Indigenous leaders, the focus tends to be on the people and the community as a collective rather than the organisations:

We think with our hearts and souls first, and that’s a good trait to think and care about other people, which we shouldn’t let go of. But in order to accomplish to get ourselves in a position of respect, in a position that we need to be in terms of human rights, then we have got to think with our head. We have to make decisions with our head based on business acumen. (P 3)

Challenges in Leadership The participants’ sense of responsibility and purpose that continues to drive their vision and aspirations are based on the hope of better outcomes for Indigenous peoples living in the region. However, the research revealed challenges that need to be explored to offer a holistic discussion of leadership in the region. The challenges identified by participants are not in isolation and not dissimilar to those experienced by leadership more generally, but some issues are central to Indigenous community leaders and this community. Some examples outlined in this section are the decision making process, trust, burnout, and tall poppy syndrome.

Leadership in Indigenous communities is complex; it requires leaders to operate under a Western governance framework, often under-resourced and over-worked, confined within the traditional boundaries and practices, values, and community expectations (Stewart & Warn, 2017; Weaver, 2013). One of the greatest challenges Indigenous leaders face is managing relationships, being caught between community expectations, and satisfying the funding and Western governance requirements (Hill, Wakerman, Matthews, & Gibson, 2001).

It is not easy to make informed decisions based on relevant information about what is best for the overall organisation rather than relationships, particularly when community relationships, including family and community, hold the leader accountable. Trying to set the long-term vision and objectives of an organisation and strategies to achieve them was identified as a key challenge, especially when most of the resources are to deal with the day- 162

to-day operations and program funding is usually only guaranteed for 12 months. Building and maintaining trust in the structure and accountability when there is no commitment to long term and sustainable funding when managing staff, community, and the funding bodies’ confidence is difficult. Aspiring leaders have to work hard to gain trust and legitimacy in the Indigenous community and broader leadership. The most difficult is to build and maintain trust, support, and faith within the community.

It was also apparent that family and community do not necessarily recognise or adhere to business operating hours, and it sometimes becomes hard to differentiate between working and living in the community:

You can’t just work your 9 to 5 hours and knock off. If community have a problem, then they will let you know about it whenever and wherever they see you. If it’s at the footy on the weekend or at the supermarket when you are shopping, it doesn’t matter. They will let you know. The community you are working for is also your family. (P 1)

Therefore, burnout is prominent when you live and work in the same environment.

It is not uncommon for Indigenous communities to experience challenges. The barriers are often external, such as the historical context, including the impact of invasion, colonisation, segregation, and assimilation, exemplifying the impact of government relationships and former policies that have exacerbated racism, discrimination, and the rights of Indigenous people. However, some of the challenges are internal. For example, several participants referred to the tall poppy syndrome – described by Julien et al. (2010, p. 122) as ‘the notion that the poppy in the poppy field that grows taller than the others will be noticed, then chopped down.’ There was a strong sense of division in the current leadership and frustration at the lack of cohesion, support, and growing distrust among community members. The following quotes are included to illustrate how this impacts the community:

Yeah, tall poppy syndrome. Even now, in our community, you see factions of our community – support one part of our community, and that comes from historical factors, you know. It’s that’s … because someone did something wrong to someone that they love and care about. Therefore, they have got to take upsides, and it’s funny – I talk about that kind of thing with older people and people that I respect, and they brush it off as being historical, and it’s been that way since x, and it’s generational, you 163

know – the generations are still living the same thing, and it’s sad, but at the same time almost impossible to change. (P 19)

Constantly see Tall Poppy Syndrome … even ... no, it’s the current leaders doing the best they can and other leaders trying to cut them off at the knees to stand on top of them. And even the idea of supporting somebody other than yourself is just … it’s unheard of to other leaders in our community. I understand everyone’s got the duty to strengthen their own cause, but at some stage, you would think the grown-ups in the room would go, okay, for the betterment of everyone else, we are going to do this. And they don’t. I mean, that is what you would expect to happen, and they don’t, do they? To the best of my knowledge, you would think the adults, that is, the other leaders, and that’s the other people around here at this level in this community, would come together and go, okay, sure, I don’t support your Munarra Centre, I don’t support your football club, I don’t support your whatever, your Lulla’s Childcare Service, but for the betterment of our community, for the sake of the kids and the next generation, I will support it because it is going to be in their best interest. We have never, in my adulthood. I have never seen anything like that from anyone in our community. (P 1)

The tall poppy syndrome is not uncommon in Indigenous communities (Julien et al., 2010). Despite the community’s success and achievements, the unresolved tensions between community groups and leaders negatively impact internal relationships and pose a significant challenge. An exploration of the different perspectives found that the tensions stem from some point in history that still needs to be addressed and that the new generation feels they inherited. Some of the community organisations that were established in the 1970s and 1980s are facing a crisis of succession as feuds among family groups continue to hinder relationships and older directors and leaders within the community resist the demands for power-sharing from younger generations.

Oh, there are lots of views in the community about Aboriginal people, and I think we can get caught up in the White thinking as well. When we start calling one another names, or we start putting people down, the tall poppy kind of stuff, and it happens in our community, by gee it does, and you can’t say it doesn’t. I mean, it happens there, because of instead of celebrating success and celebrating family’s achievements and young people’s achievements, we put it down, we criticise it, so I think we’ve learned those bad habits from mainstream, from the wider society. Yeah, that’s just what I think anyway. (P 11)

164

The progression of Indigenous leadership in communities has been identified as a non-formal process that certain members of the community are ‘born into’ (P 18). Leadership was described as a responsibility that is inherited, not necessarily a personal endeavour for their own advancement or individual accolades, not a choice but a role or a job that leaders in the community feel an obligation to take on. There is no process of appointing or identifying leadership in the Indigenous community; the leadership method still has its roots in traditions. The evolution of leadership is a reflection of the community and thousands of years of being an ‘unwritten, unspoken natural persona that happens in Aboriginal families’ (P 18).

Unlike mainstream, Indigenous leadership is not a hierarchy or necessarily based on specific career positions; rather, leadership is earned over a long period. For example, one participant elaborates on this point:

Just say the CEO of the co-op who has just come back to town, even though he is in a ‘leadership position’ within the organisation, that doesn’t give him the same level of respect as someone who has been working in and for the community for more than 50 years, no way. Leadership and respect takes time, and you have to prove yourself. A title alone doesn’t make you a leader, and that’s sometimes where we go wrong. (P 18)

Participants recognised the rewards and challenges of leadership within the community. There are longstanding struggles, including the lack of formal process, that are integral to the effectiveness and function of the community. The absence of boundaries hinders collaboration. Understanding the complexities of community relationships and finding a more workable governance structure that is not so dependent on the depth of individual leadership and relationships of that time but rather is embedded in the organisational and community governance structures would improve outcomes. Indigenous leadership plays an important role in building and maintaining collaborative and productive relationships.

Leadership Health and Wellbeing The terms ‘leadership’ and ‘leader’ are not traditionally found in Australian Indigenous languages. They are foreign concepts introduced into Indigenous societies with colonisation (Julien et al., 2010). Indigenous communities tend to evade the traditional Western top-down hierarchy of governance and leadership. They have managed to maintain some elements of traditional positions as equal to the rest of the community. In this study, leaders expressed

165

feeling a part of the community, being valued and respected by the community as equal to any individual accolades. The reciprocity of respect is what makes the community central to any decision-making process. Leadership in Indigenous communities differs from Western definitions; it is usually someone that has gained respect. One participant defined it as:

They naturally have that persona about them that everyone comes to them. Sometimes it might not be the oldest, it might be the second or the third oldest, but it is somebody that is older in the family, isn’t it? It’s just an amazing, unspoken, unwritten natural governance thing that we still have. I get asked that question all the time. ‘What makes the Elder in the family?’ and they think there’s a voting or it’s the eldest or whatever. It’s unconscious. And then you know the ones there’s no way in hell you’d go to, as well, you’ve got others in the family that just don’t walk the talk. I’ve got those. I just wouldn’t go to them, no way, that’s it. But then there are the key roles that different ones have, so if you’ve got six aunties in the family, or mum and the aunties. One might be the story keeper, holds all the family knowledge and the stories. One might be the cultural knowledge person; one might be sitting on an Elders council at a Rumba or a Yorta Yorta … all their roles are as important as the other. (P 15)

From a community perspective, leadership is difficult to describe. It is a position that appears to be allocated, sometimes, regardless of whether the particular person is interested in taking on a leadership position or not. It is also something that is not to be taken for granted, for it can be taken away as quickly as it was given, and the respective position comes with the acceptance that the community will hold that individual to account.

Because of the lack of formal processes around the development and appointment of leaders in Indigenous communities, there are challenges. For instance, if one was to assess the stress and negativity versus the rewards of leadership in Indigenous communities, the results of this research indicate leadership can have significant ramifications on individuals, their families, and the community. It is rarely possible to please everyone all the time, and while the purpose of Indigenous community leadership is to connect the community, the reality is that it also has the potential to divide:

We think very siloed as an organisation, and if somebody else is celebrating, then we think, well, that’s that mob celebrating ... no, that’s your celebration! It’s a broader celebration of success in our community that we can’t do it on our own. We have got to be united, and we have got to share the challenges as well as the successes. That is 166

a real environmental challenge for us the way that we have grown in our silos of organisations, and then people say we begrudge people that succeed, or we don’t support that success because we don’t feel we are a part of it. That is a real thing for our organisations and the way we operate. We have to figure out how to break that and find that sense of unity. (P 7)

Sacrifice was one of the themes construed from the interviews in discussions related to leadership. For example, one participant articulated the impact leadership can have on relationships, sharing a very personal story of losing their family:

Without going down this other path, people so often wonder why I haven’t stuck and helped out [in leadership positions in the community]. I got cruelled. I lost my own, you know, my … family life over it. (p 2)

This is one example of the repercussions of making decisions in such a close-knit community, and the effects leadership can have on individuals, families and the community.

STRENGTHS The Yorta Yorta people in the Goulburn Murray region still reside on the lands of their ancestors and have been able to maintain their innate spiritual and physical connection to their traditional lands. With an inspiring history of strong advocacy and strong leadership, confidence, and esteem, their brand is known and supported nationally, and this community wears that with a sense of pride.

I suppose our history is our key strength, and we are still on … we are still on the lands of our ancestors. We have got a history of strong advocacy and strong leadership and really strong esteem amongst the Yorta Yorta brand – space, and that sort of gets supported by national affirmation of other Aboriginal leaders. So, people wear that with a sense of pride. (P 12)

They have been able to hold on to significant places like Cummeragunja, which is seen as a contemporary home base where precious memories and stories of hardship and survival are attached, from a time where the connectivity between Indigenous families and the cooperative behaviour of families and togetherness emphasised the support they felt for each other.

So, I guess the strengths for us is resilience, standing up, these are a lot of people who still look back to the past to the strength of those elders that walked the talk and 167

brought the change, you know. So, they’re always talking about how my grandfather did this, so I’m doing this. So I think our history, our ancestors, our Elders, the Elders today are still our strength. (P 13)

This community’s resilience and ability to survive, adapt, and overcome a lot of the government changes and reforms, particularly over the last 80 years, was also identified as a key strength.

When you think about some of the stalwarts who are now Elders, their contribution over the years has helped promote the change that has been inclusive in the way the community has survived and managed to exist despite the hardship they endured. (P 5)

Elders hold a significant place in the Indigenous community. It was the advocacy of Elders and their struggle to ensure the change was for the betterment of Indigenous families and to help build a better future for the community.

We have strong roots in lore, including connections to our traditional land, knowledge, and use of our language, passing down our culture and customs, and connections and responsibility to family and community. (P 7)

The Yorta Yorta’s legacy of leadership was often referred to as one of the community’s biggest strengths:

Our leadership has been our leaders leading us all the way through. That’s why Shepparton has become a big focus on leadership for other communities as well because there’s a number of people that have come from Cummera. (P 11)

Those leaders coming off Cummeragunja were strong advocates for the rights of Yorta Yorta people and Indigenous rights in the state, nationally and internationally.

The strength of a community always is that regardless of everything that happens around us, we continue to come back together and fight. The classic example is the Uluru Statement of the Heart. Although there were people out there on the treaty side and were saying, ‘we are treaty, we are treaty, we are treaty’ – when the statement was rejected by the Prime Minister, it brought all of us together, and everyone felt that rejection it was against Aboriginal people – all Aboriginal people – and interesting the conversations about Treaty really dropped off. Here is a process that Aboriginal people have gone through. You know, through that process, they have come up with a statement, and that statement represented all of us and incorporated components of Treaty and other things. It was rejected – and you had very vocal local people, you had

168

the Thorpe’s – you know, and … you had others running around saying the process was flawed and so on. But even they (emphasis) felt the impact of the rejection and got in behind it, and so we haven’t given up, we have been working at for a long time … (P 14)

The determination and vision and the depth of leadership is something the community is proud of. Their courage to dream outside of the confinements of what is now to what it could be if the community is to achieve active self-determination, independence, and control over their community.

I think a big part of it … this is what I’ve learned from my experience is – instead of focusing, and it’s pretty hard not to … a lot of the work in Aboriginal communities or the work we do in Aboriginal affairs focuses on the here and now, like the symptom or the crisis that’s in front of us, and it’s hard not to kind of focus on that, because it’s people’s lives being disrupted and families and communities. So, you have to put time into that. But probably the key thing which I think the region does differently is there is a vision about tomorrow or about the next 5 or 10 years, and even aiming for things that sometimes other people would nearly laugh at. Especially the broader community, the non-Aboriginal community. They think, well, that will never happen … and then it happens. You know the Shepparton community definitely has had strong leaders that have really thought about the vision and the future. You see it not only through the cooperative but then the footy, netball club, and you know, the aged care facility. There is all these things, and people say, ‘Well, how did you get it?’ Well, it started from somebody thinking that one day we have got to have something that is better than this. (P 9)

The community’s plan to build aspirations can relate to organisations. However, it has to be initiated by an individual who dares to dream outside the box and inevitably believes anything is possible with the right attitude and resources.

Other strengths identified included the geographic location of Yorta Yorta country, less than 200 kilometres from the state’s capital, on the banks of the Goulburn and Murray rivers, with mountains, snow and beach all accessible within a 200-kilometre radius.

It’s geographic location – geographic. I’ve always seen Shepparton to be underutilised and under realised. It’s close enough to the city to be engaged but far enough away to be dragged down by the bullshit, so our location is a definite strength. (P 1)

169

The geographic setting of Yorta Yorta Country provides access to natural resources with the rivers, ocean, mountains, and landscape, providing a thriving economy and plenty of natural resources for sustainability.

The Indigenous community is well resourced in terms of the infrastructure for service delivery in the region compared to other Indigenous communities in Australia: Each of our community members is supported through their life pathway, from early childhood to elder, and understand their role in the community. (P 7)

The Yorta Yorta Nation has three thriving Aboriginal Community Controlled Health Organisations that provide accessible and appropriate health care to Indigenous peoples in the region, as well as infrastructure, facilities, and services that cater for all the needs of the community, including ‘the footy club, aged care, health services, education, employment etc.’ (P 2).

The current resources and infrastructure of the community are indicative of trust in the Yorta Yorta and local leadership. They have been built off relationships: We have had really good partnerships, friendships and relationships. Relationships are really important, as are those institutional partnerships. You have to engender security where people feel it is a safe and critical place to invest. (P 7)

Finally, the sense of community, the shared principles, values and beliefs that have been passed from generation to generation for thousands of years, was identified as one of this community’s strengths. Several participants acknowledged the shared history that demonstrates the strength and resilience of their ancestors and subsequent Indigenous leaders. This is underpinned by the fact that they have been able to maintain ownership and control of sacred culture and knowledge. To this day, they have been able to maintain their sense of connection, community and family.

Number one strength is belief in community, sense of community. I think that’s our greatest strength. Our connection to land, our connection to community, and shared beliefs and want for a stronger community. Our cultural connection, I think that’s our greatest strength. Our belief in family and our family values, those are our greatest

170

strengths. For me, culture is our greatest strength, our sense of connection to country, our shared history. (P 14)

The Goulburn Murray Indigenous community has a solid foundation to build on the successes, drawing on their strong history of prominent Indigenous leaders. They have been relentless in their advocacy for the rights of Indigenous people. The key is to continue growing and building on the foundation, to consider the tools and resources the community needs to strengthen the platform it currently operates from.

Building on the strengths requires ‘an approach that reflects on all sorts of areas, from the community-based cultures or local issues that people experience around their protective factors and their risk factors including institutional racism’ (P 7). Participants explained that minimising the risk factors involves conducting an audit of the internal and external risk factors, including financial sustainability, and ensuring government engagement and requirements adapt to the community’s evolving vision. A reflection of how the community is currently operating will help better understand the role of organisations in the current environment before looking forward and thinking about the future and what that may or may not look like for the community. From the participants' perspectives, it is essential the community, including the organisations, have input into the planning and development and recognise the value of their contribution from the beginning.

If we take Shepparton, for instance, surrounding community, could we have done it [community governance] differently and could we have done it better? Yes, but that would have meant a lot of individuals and people understanding who was best positioned for that to occur and happen. And I think at the moment there is a historical connection point that plays a big part, and rightly so, in the eyes and minds and the hearts of a lot of Aboriginal people in this area. Could there have been a way that they could have been consolidated to embody and move the community as a whole? Potentially yes. I do hold some faith and hope in the current self-determination principles that are being implemented or developed as well as the [state] treaty. I think we will never be truly rid of a Western construct, but I think we have an ability and influence to shape our way of governance that sees ten per cent or even fifteen per cent of Western elements of our overall governance structure going forward. Because we still need to be able to compete and bid for funding that comes from a bigger pool. That being said, we also need to be thinking about how we invest for a sustainable future. I think the thing is, whilst there are a lot of people who want to be at the 171

investment side for that sustainability, we still have people who are still managing and trying to get through everyday life, and it’s about how we bring them along, and that’s not something that can be done quickly. (P 12)

Although they are the strengths, one can never be too complacent. There is a need to continue to build on the strengths:

They are our strengths, but I don’t think we use our strengths very wisely. I think it does lack. It lacks design in the infrastructure. It has been driven by need and a clear vision and collective vision on what it is and how we want to achieve it. (P 12)

The community has experienced success in social, cultural and economic areas in recent years; however, the accomplishments to date have not led to substantial change relative to the rest of society. There is still room to continue that growth. It is important that the community push the boundaries and imagine a different approach and a better future to keep building on its success. A part of that is ensuring an inclusive decision-making process that supports the vision and the aspirations of the community and works towards building the capacity within the community.

CHALLENGES The core challenge participants identified as preventing the attainment of parity for Indigenous people in the region is racism. Racism has the effect of challenging one’s sense of identity, perpetuating intergenerational trauma, and hindering the pursuit of aspiration (Yin Paradies, Harris, & Anderson, 2008):

I don’t know if it’s a challenge for us or the broader society. It’s racism and ignorance. I think that’s a challenge. Regional Victoria it is more about racism and the community impact. Racism and ignorance are huge. (P 14)

It was clear from all interviews that the impact of racism in the region is significant, and leaders are still trying to find the best way to deal with the problem to reduce the number of incidents and to build resilience:

The issue of racism and how it operates is very – it is institutionalised, and we have to figure out how best we deal with it and how best we mitigate racism in the environment when we are a lightning rod for racism. How do we build the strategy and resilience to create a healthier space that we, in the long term, the work that the club is doing is changing the attitudes and behaviours of mainstream society as well? (P 7) 172

Exposure to racism was reported from an early age, and the impacts last a lifetime:

Yes, because of racism, you know, and it starts when you are at school. I’ve had a whole year with a Year 4 teacher who just abused me and, you know, just said nasty things to me, and that impacted on me for many, many years, and it still does today. Yeah, it still does today with my public speaking, you know. So, it is … Geez, I don’t know, still 50 years later, and it is still impacting on me. When you are told … and a lot of us Aboriginal kids are told you are not good enough. You know, even when my eldest was going to school, I was called in, and the teacher said, ‘These sorts of kids go to jail.’ You know, and he was just a class clown, you know, he was disruptive, he was never violent, and he was just the class clown. But the perception was that he was just going to end up in jail. So, you know, the media stereotypes it too. That has a big impact on us as Aboriginal people. (P 5)

Systemic racism has a detrimental effect on the overall health and wellbeing of Indigenous people (Paradies 2006; Paradies, Harris & Anderson 2008). Not knowing when and where it might happen makes every aspect of life unsafe and adversely affects physical and mental well-being and limiting opportunities to participate in society (Mokak & Guthrie 2017; Bourke et al. 2017). One participant shared their experience and the impact of racism they have endured and compared it to a war zone.

I think racism, I still face that today in doing cultural competency. I see it every day. I never know what I’m going to have when I walk into a classroom, the sort of people that will be there. I think the worst racists I’ve had in 20 years have been in the last 18 months, and they’ve been nursing students at TAFE, and it’s been pretty mind-blowing. But you have some high level in government, high level in police, prisons and hospitals who come out with some really horrid things. So, I think the challenge is how you can continue to educate them without being impacted by that yourself because you’re stepping into a war zone every time. (P 13)

Where society is interpreted through institutions such as those mentioned here – police, prisons, hospitals, and education – exposes how unsympathetic the broader society can be to Indigenous history or situations. They appear determined to defend their interests and tend to blame Indigenous people for their position. In part, this is possibly because of the lack of knowledge or awareness of the historical understanding of Indigenous people who are so often confronted with fear. A lack of respect and generational devaluing of Indigenous

173

people’s rights and culture is something the community has been trying to deal with since the 1980s:

The community was dealing with a huge number of young men suiciding in the late 80s early 90s or something. When I asked the question, ‘How well we are resourced to deal with these issues?’, VAHS [Victorian Aboriginal Health Services] were already having those conversations, and they were talking to the Faculty of Psychiatry at Melbourne Uni, so we joined in with that, and it was to try and unpack what mental health was and the impact of exclusion. That was Rumbalara Aboriginal Cooperative, they were the vehicle, and we were also using the Koori Resource and Information Centre. That was the first time we were investing in ‘how do we understand the challenge that is facing us and how do we strategise and mitigate out of it?’ (P 5)

This quote highlights the seriousness of racism and exclusion and the community’s frustration with the system to deal with consequential impacts on the community, and the lack of power and control to deal with it. This participant is referring to the Report of the Rumbalara Aboriginal Mental Health (2001).

I think it was a White leadership issue in terms of the First Fleet and the colonisers who first arrived and the lack of structure amongst Aboriginal tribes and groups. No one person from an Aboriginal perspective had the ability to make a treaty on behalf of anybody … or everybody else. It was a different society. Plus, they [the colonisers] had a very poor view of the value of the people who were notably recognised as subhuman to be able to have the … to be able to sit at the same level and reach agreement on a treaty, for example, that would have put our people in a better position. (P 7)

Upon invasion, there was no sense that the colonisers needed to understand the culture that supported the economies of Indigenous people at the point of dispossession: ‘Whatever was happening in this country upon arrival of the British convoys was irrelevant to them, and that lack of relevance still persists’ (P 7). Indigenous peoples have adapted to the changing landscape and, to some degree, are conforming to dominant society, but the reality is ‘we really haven’t shifted in the power relationship between Aboriginal leadership and Western or mainstream leadership’ (P 7). This was also described as the ‘symptoms of poor relationships and lack of value and respect historically and generationally. That’s got its roots than in invasion of Aboriginal lands, dispossession and colonisation (P 7).

174

Figuring out how Indigenous peoples survive in an environment from which they have been predominately excluded has been a concern of this community for many years or, as one participant states, ‘navigating through cultural ignorance is a real challenge’ (P 15). Indigenous people in the region are still trying to negotiate an existence while maintaining and strengthening a sense of being, identity, culture, and relationships with each other and between the broader society including governments, which is an entirely different framework: ‘We are a group of people that work predominately on relationships. Relationships are very important to us, very important if not the most important thing for us (P 18).

This research revealed two essential ingredients required to work in the Indigenous community: unity and trust. However, the government continues to use ACCOs in the region for its political agenda, which has contributed to a sense of distrust among organisations and programs competing for funding.

Really, we’re our own worst enemy in some cases as well because you don’t know, like a lot of people distrust our own people, and sometimes you trust your own people, and it comes back and bites you as well. It’s happened to me before, you know. Really sort of discourages you from being involved in community boards and that kind of … because you know … because of those experiences, but then you’ve got to go, well at the end of the day if you don’t put your hand up, no one else will. But yeah, that’s a hard one. [What steps do you think this community could take towards achieving a regional negotiations table?] That’s probably one I can’t answer now, but someone has to do it, someone has to. (P 10)

Since the 1970s, there has been a distinct fragmentation of communal behaviours, and the community is isolated in its groups. There is a clear lack of trust that has been exacerbated over the years: ‘I think it is having trust with one another, the trust has been eroded over time’ (P 4). Limited government resource allocations that fund the community’s organisations are what currently underpin the Indigenous community’s economy. Therefore, the community is caught up in the day-to-day operations and, as a whole, has not been able to measure the long-term impact of government interventions on the overall health and wellbeing of Indigenous people, families and the community.

175

Indigenous communities have limited access to capital, resources, knowledge, and expertise in comparison to the wider community as a direct result of previous policies that openly discriminated against Indigenous people having access. This hinders the ability for economic growth and financial sustainability, particularly when it comes to workforce participation and developing businesses:

And I look at things despite the impact on language, despite the impact on culture, the impact on land, I think one of the greatest impacts is the economic impact or lack thereof. So, we’ve been completely cut out of economic development. If you look at one of the aspects of self-determination, you can’t have self-determination unless you have your own economic base where you can make decisions and support … financially support those decisions. So, for me, there is lots of challenges, lots of atrocities committed, but for me, that is the greatest atrocity, and that comes as the lack of adequate resources, including the human resources and the financial resources, in our communities. (P 8)

Although some responses indicate the community is well resourced in comparison to other Indigenous communities around Australia, participants also articulated how the resources are often caught up dealing with the issues that are current today and managing the day-to-day crises: ‘It is difficult to find a place and space to undertake critical thinking around developing an agenda that will carry the community into tomorrow without being too complacent’ (P 19). It is a real challenge to manage the day to day operations. Many organisations lack the necessary resources for future planning. In addition, the metrics used to assess the outcomes of programs and funding for priorities are set by the government. They do not reflect the values and priorities of Indigenous communities and, therefore, have not been effective in addressing structural challenges. Instead, they perpetuate stereotypes and encourage non- Indigenous-led interventions into the lives of Indigenous peoples.

It’s difficult to work with mainstream because they don’t’ understand the trauma and circumstances Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people have found themselves in and the circumstances that were not caused by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. This is something that we have had to struggle with and just pick up the pieces and get on with life. So, working with mainstream has been really challenging, explaining and justifying why Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people deserve a better life and deserve better outcomes. (P 15)

176

Participants were clear that to reinstate the quality of life enjoyed by Indigenous people before invasion, parallel and sustained investment must be allocated to activities and infrastructure that support the sense of community, families, and individuals and affirm an expression of culture, identity, language, and heritage.

PROSPERITY AND OPPORTUNITY The Yorta Yorta Nation has been investing in innovative ways to have more ownership, control and authority over priority setting, decision-making, service delivery, and empowerment. Part of that is the community’s self-governance and self-determination and relationship with government, the impact of government policies and practices, with an emphasis on the language deficit discourse, as identified by leaders in the region, looking specifically at the community’s future vision and plan moving forward.

This community is looking for a more respectful approach that acknowledges the current power imbalances and recognises the value and contribution of Indigenous culture, which fundamentally forms the basis of the community concept of prosperity on country and repositioning the social, cultural, and economic value of Indigenous people in the region. To achieve long term, sustainable change, there needs to be a radical overhaul in the way Indigenous communities engage with each other and with all levels of government. A new approach that charters a meaningful relationship builds on the cultural capabilities of mainstream, supports the sustainability of Indigenous communities, and addresses social exclusion, discrimination and marginalisation of Indigenous peoples is needed.

The notion of prosperity in this research elicited a different response to traditional economic wealth. There was a range of indicators that did not touch on the traditional economic indicators at all. Participants redefined what prosperity means for this community and what the critical ingredients are to prosperity, and what should be measured in terms of that success.

What Does Prosperity Look Like Here? Prosperity was described as: ‘Healthy, respected, family, Indigenous families here in the wider community, that’s how I see that picture. Happy, healthy, educated, all the possibilities, have all the possibilities that everybody else has (P 18). Prosperity is not necessarily interpreted through the lens of economic participation and wealth creation for Indigenous people. Prosperity is about 177

happiness, identity, culture, kinship and community. It is feeling a sense of belonging, acceptance and being afforded the opportunity to be healthy and happy, not asking for any more or any less, just to have all the possibilities that everybody else has. I think it’s an early conversation, but sometimes I think we are like that frog in the boiling water. We live in a very, very racist environment, and we have coped with it, and we’ve learnt how to live in it, but that doesn’t mean we are healthy and well because of it. You get those daily reflections on that, and there might be little things like – someone said one of the sports stores have security tags on Rumbalara footy shorts, but no other footy shorts had security tags. They are daily occurrences in the lives of Aboriginal people, and you say, well okay, and you cope, and you accept. (P 7) It is difficult to imagine a sense of future while trying to manage in an environment where incidents, as described above, are a daily occurrence. One participant described prosperity as: It’s like peeling that onion in that sense. It’s the different layers about those conversations as a continuous conversation to saying: ‘Well, why can’t you have that aspiration or dreaming about what a future might look like?’ You need a job; you need money in your pocket. But a deeper layer is that you need an economy underpinning you for your own sense of security and safety as a people. So how do you make decisions if you don’t have an independent economy backing you as sovereign people? (P 7) There are overarching measures of prosperity such as sovereignty, the sustainability of culture and economic outcomes, and there are also measures as simple as happiness, good health, social and cultural connection. In terms of financial prospects, there is a perception in the community that ‘there are haves and have nots, so there is a middle class growing, but there is still a lot of poverty inside of communities (P 7). Somewhere among the rising middle class and poverty, the community is searching for a profile that meets the needs of everyone in the community. Understanding the current environment while thinking about the future, the community is doing the best they can with what they have while trying to encourage the broader society to support their vision to achieve prosperity. One participant acknowledges: We are very vulnerable, and we are vulnerable because we don’t have an economy supporting us, and we are reliant on external government, like government grants and processes etc., to keep our organisations running. (P 9) Although the community not only measures prosperity in terms of economic participation, it is recognised as an important avenue: ‘well, whatever the prosperity indicators are, whether it is happy, health indicators, or financial indicators, you get to define them (P 5). The community has

178

established programs in recent years to help increase prosperity for the region, including health, social or economic participation. Rumba Ripples is one example. The club was looking for jobs, getting jobs and putting money in people’s pockets has always been there for as long as I can remember. And it flows in terms of entry-level jobs, the lack of sustainability of jobs. So, we have always been doing this cycle. We ran the Aboriginal employment program early 90’s, on the corner opposite KFC. We got Commonwealth money and the City of Shepparton auspiced it and when the money ran out, so did the interest. But jobs have always been a part of our everyday challenge and pursuit. There are lots of consistencies and the thing around – trying to find places around cultural celebration and affirmation when you are living in a town that rejects you. (P 7)

The community has been pushing the regional leaders to celebrate and affirm Indigenous identities and to embrace the concept that ‘we are all in this together’. Everyone shares a common fate if the overall health, wellbeing, and prosperity of the Indigenous community fail. There has been pressure applied to the government to effect and create change, so they have flexibility with resource allocation, so they are not only consumed in the intervention space and can plan beyond the intervention itself. The focus has been on remedying the symptoms rather than addressing the causes of comparative disadvantage experienced by Indigenous people. Instead, participants agreed that government at all levels should look to making structural reforms that affirm (or even celebrate) the culture and identity of Indigenous peoples. This would have the flow-on impact of building aspiration and confidence and improving Indigenous people's economic engagement while providing a strong foundational identity. There is a critical need to change the narrative, invest in regional development, capability building within the community, and economic prosperity, including well-being and self-determination, rather than merely responding to services and responding to crises. Prosperity for Indigenous people is: Constitutional recognition and a path to self-determination and genuine self-governance. Self-governance cannot be tokenistic or be a transfer of the difficult decisions of government to community without also taking steps to protect identity, culture and facilitate prosperity. (P 7)

Something of Value The cultural knowledge and practice of the Indigenous people are of inherent value. They are complicated and intricate and appreciate relationships above all else. Those relationships are 179

among each other, individuals, families, family groups, and communities, but are also intrinsically linked to all living things. The innate connection to the land and waterways, to the dreaming stories in the sky that was essentially a map that evolved with the changing seasons. It includes the protection of animals and plant species to ensure every living thing on earth has the opportunity to survive and thrive for the future sustainability of everyone and everything. The relationships are as old as humanity itself and are alive in sacred arts, music, dance, and stories that follow traditions and carry out significant rites and rituals (Langton, 2018). However, the matters that are of significant importance and value to Indigenous peoples have no value to the wider community. Rather than initially focusing on dimensions of Indigenous culture as something of value, the White colonial concepts of value have been about capital wealth and resources for personal gain. I guess when you are talking about value, it has to be something that the wider population’s enterprises and communities can relate to. At a practical level, the ‘something of value’ is most likely to be connected with access to capital or other resources. (P 18).

FUTURE VISION The Yorta Yorta people are imagining a future where their position and contribution to the entire region are valued. They are trying to reclaim their place in the regional economy of Northern Victoria. Although the region is rich and vibrant, Indigenous people are not currently present in the major industry profiles of the Goulburn Murray region:

As Aboriginal people, we are trying to participate in the economy, but the day-today behaviour of interventions have followed us from the missions, and the mainstream view is about assimilation of Indigenous people and practices into Western society. We can’t participate until we are accepted into the region. (P 7) The community has already made significant progress in critical areas to establish a strong foundation to meet their future vision through locally developed initiatives such as:

• the Business Development Unit • Rumbalara Football Netball Clubs • Algabonyah Employment Program • Academy of Sport Health and Education • the Munarra Centre for Regional Excellence. 180

The community is working to strengthen education, training, and economic opportunities for Indigenous people to redefine their perceived status in the region. The relationship between the community and the broader regional leadership has led to different approaches being trialled, aiming to move away from the deficit narrative to an investment strategy. The employment and education strategies seek to reposition the perceived value of the Indigenous people in the region and recognise the community’s social and cultural contribution to the economy and social fabric of the region.

In the mid-1940s and maybe 1950s, the Dash’s paddock is a tip site and a campsite with tin huts, hashing bags with dirt floors. It’s transformed into what it is now. What do people take from that transition and what will it be in the next 30 or 40 years, and how will the future generations feel about the legacy that we leave, and can they build on it? – and they will … whether it’s a deficit legacy or an affirmative one, people will tackle it, and there is a responsibility from us that the legacy that we leave is as best we can while we still tackle the problems that we face today. (P 7) There was no sense of an agreement on what the future vision would look like for the community from the participants’ perspective as a consequence of the current governance structure that has organisations and leadership operating out of silos. The community's future vision can only be reached when the community is working in collaboration when the interests of the community are put before the interests of individuals and family groups.

Social has an important part to play in culture and wellbeing, entrenching that we have to have our own social gatherings and having that trust and that encouragement amongst one another, you know, coming together as one people. And then the other part is mainstream. We can’t be strong unless we know who we are and where we are heading. (P 4) The community’s vision for Prosperity on Country and repositioning value hinges on their ability to dismantle the silos that have provided a source of security over the last 40 years and find a way to work together. Paradoxically, the silos have (re)produced disempowerment, an insidious power play by the government:

Well, for us to be able to go about doing that [set the agenda and the vision], we need to trust one another and respect the differences, and empowerment is a funny thing. 181

You can’t really measure empowerment. The only way I suppose you can see you’re empowered is if we can go out and get what we want. For us to be able to get to that space where we all come together … it needs a lot of hard work and, um, goodwill and um, some leadership and people wanting to make sure that that happens and that you have a succession plan in that leadership around that agenda so that there is plan stepped out, and the foundations are laid, and this is what we want, and we are moving towards it. (P 4)

Indigenous communities rarely find the time or resources to work on a forward plan collectively. Having a clearly set out prosperity plan would certainly build the foundations. Having a well thought out and established goal provides hope and builds aspirations. While many of the participants expressed concern about the fragmentation in the community, they all identified the benefits and possibilities of the community coming together, setting a future vision, and working towards achieving it for future generations.

CHAPTER SUMMARY The Yorta Yorta Nation is founded on some of the most prominent and influential Indigenous advocates and most successful leaders recognised both nationally and internationally. It is important to acknowledge the trends that have been set by former leaders and ensure the future and aspirations are building on that foundation. A lot of emphasis was placed on the ‘trusted’ nature of those networks.

This chapter explored the social, cultural, economic and political landscape in the Goulburn Murray region and covered the strengths and weaknesses discussed by the participants of this study. The Goulburn Murray regional approach to building a collective and collaborative future for Indigenous peoples is by investing in the social, cultural, and spiritual economies of community. The architecture and future design for a more effective and collaborative approach cannot be met by isolated, siloed approaches with bureaucratic government interventions as the main Key Performance Indicator. The intervention approach has its roots in racism and notions of racial superiority or, at best, apathy and ignorance linked to assimilation and the exploitation of Indigenous peoples. This needs to be evaluated based on an understanding of the impact of exclusion, racism, and discrimination and on mental health and the recognition of the value of Indigenous people and their contribution to the broader community. The inability and failure of the Goulburn Murray region to acknowledge the 182

importance of recognising Yorta Yorta people’s human rights require acknowledgement. Part of that recognition is unpacking the impact of the failure to recognise the sovereignty of Yorta Yorta peoples. That recognition should also acknowledge the impact of policies that have placed Indigenous people into isolation and a survival mentality over the past 200 years. Taking into consideration the community’s strengths and challenges from an Indigenous leadership perspective provides valuable insights. This chapter discussed the community leadership. The legitimacy of these important positions is essential to understand how they engage with the community to generate support for their aspiring visions. The current social, cultural, economic, and political environment is influenced by the way the community manages expectations, the way they stimulate innovative thinking for the region around its future directions while encompassing the relevant principles. In managing the day-to-day needs, the community has managed to find space to envision a different operating system and provide policy advice on what a better future would look like for them. It is up to government to relinquish some of the power and privilege and acknowledge Indigenous people are a part of the solution and not the cause of ongoing disparities. Some participants had a clear view of the region’s prosperity plan, which seeks to reposition the value of Indigenous people in the region. There was generally a lack of clarity about the future and vision for Indigenous peoples living on Yorta Yorta country. This extends to the vision Indigenous leadership has for the future of Indigenous people in the region, and there is no vision within the broader leadership, including the political, bureaucratic, or business leadership that is necessarily synergised with Indigenous leadership for the region.

Knowledge of potential ways to transform relationships between mainstream Australia and Indigenous populations has clear benefits for decision making and policies in Indigenous spaces and for future research. From an Indigenous research and community perspective, this will have significant ramifications for Australia’s First People. It provides a community’s approach to addressing social exclusion, discrimination, inequality and the marginalisation of Indigenous peoples. Addressing social factors that play a critical role in the overall health, wellbeing and quality of life of Indigenous people is vitally important.

183

The Indigenous community has continued their approach to reform for the betterment of Indigenous people in the Goulburn Murray region and more broadly. They continue to challenge the society in which they live, to identify and celebrate strengths, and acknowledge and address deficiencies. They continue to maintain a dialogue with government and bureaucracy regarding a holistic, rights-based approach to Indigenous affairs rather than coming from a deficit or siloed service provision model. The community’s priority is the sustainability of the culture and identity of Yorta Yorta people in the hope that their presence will be accepted and celebrated as a significant contribution to the region and the nation.

184

CHAPTER SEVEN – YORTA YORTA ALGABONYAH GOVERNANCE AND GOVERNMENT

OVERVIEW This chapter focuses on community governance and government. The participants perspective of the current community governance structure is investigated, specifically what the community has learned from their experiences with governance. The repercussions of a siloed approach in Indigenous community organisations and the impact and strategies to bring down the silos for a more collaborative approach to community governance are examined. I define the meaning of self-governance from an Indigenous perspective and consider the challenges of the community’s current governance structure and the impact of community politics as identified by participants. Finally, leaders’ responses to these challenges are explored. The second half of this chapter focuses on the impact of government interventions. I then explore self-determination and empowerment, the community investment proposal, and reflect on the community’s progress towards enacting that proposal to date.

Indigenous community governance has undergone significant changes in a relatively short period. The growth and development of Indigenous-specific infrastructure have only been occurring since the 1970s, and organisations have been readily adapting to changes depending on the government’s policy phase (Will Sanders, 2002; Tsey, 2012).

I think what’s happened is that the governance model has been built on ‘we haven’t got anything so let’s pull together a few people and let’s make it happen’, and now we have got … you know, the infrastructure, or a lot of infrastructures. We have resources, and we have different models which have grown out of the silos that they were built in. Not so much the collective for the whole community. (P 9)

Although governance is something that Indigenous people have been doing for tens of thousands of years (The Australian Indigenous Governance Institute, 2014), the expansion of organisations over the last 50 years has been substantial and Indigenous organisations are now integral elements of the Indigenous community’s economy and development.

185

The Goulburn Murray region of Victoria has a range of Indigenous organisations that manage the delivery of a broad range of services to the community across the employment, education, sports, health, and legal sectors. Each of the organisations is governed by its own board that predominately has a majority Indigenous membership (Algabonyah Score Card 2017). Yet Indigenous community governance was described by participants as ad hoc and complicated:

Well, six organisations, right [Shepparton only], if you go to say Yorta Yorta alone, then you break that down again to 16 family groups, or 15 as well as that, so it’s very complex. It’s not only about organisation governance, it’s about family and family group governance as well, so there are so many layers to it. Then there’s those who won’t be involved or aren’t a part of family groups, or they don’t come from here. Families themselves have governance. So, if you talk about governance in the traditional way, you’re talking about the Elders in the family and how the family itself come together, how they meet, how they engage, how they sit around a campfire or cook a meal together. How the men talk, and the women talk. Do they still do men’s business and women’s business, all that kind of stuff? So that’s all very ad hoc for families today, isn’t it? (P 13)

Indigenous organisations play an important role in the community, providing cultural oversight and control over the design, plan and implementation of services to the community. From the community’s perspective, the different factors that have contributed to the success and challenges of the community’s governance structures are important and can inform the proposal going forward. The community has faced many challenges trying to redefine what a healthy, vibrant Indigenous community looks like.

Cooperation. Cooperation seems to be the thing that nobody can wrap their head around. It’s unbelievable, and it shits me that there are relatives and Elders around that still haven’t been able to fix it – like it’s the sort of issue that would have been dealt with generations ago – White people would have. White people would have done it generations ago so that kids my age and my kids only have to worry about going to school and getting rich. They have already got their avenues. They have already got their self-sustaining economy, you know – but we don’t cooperate and support each other to a point where it does that. (P 1)

I am worried that the idea of a united community becoming more distant – and it will become a lot more silo-based … our community. But we will wait and see. It hasn’t happened yet, but I am worried that that will come, and it will happen. (P 14)

186

Dodson and Smith (2003, p. v) emphasise that ‘building good governance is … the key ingredient, the foundation stone for building sustainable development in communities’. The Yorta Yorta Nations in the Goulburn Murray region of Victoria, through the Kaiela Institute, have proposed an approach to building a collective vision for the community that ultimately aims to reposition the value of Indigenous peoples living on Yorta Yorta country through an alternative governance approach ("Kaiela Institute Independent Centre for Leadership and Innovation ", 2018). The overall approach was outlined in detail in the case study chapter. The Yorta Yorta Nation believes they are among the first in Australia to put forward a proposal that seeks to activate Indigenous self-determination and equality in the rights and opportunities for Indigenous peoples across the life course.

The emergent regional governance model aims to rise above the day-to-day resource allocation and interventions in crisis mode to recognise, as one participant expressed:

… that the current infrastructure and leadership has been locked down into survival mechanism in the current Federal Government policy framework, which in effect rejects the community’s vision of self-determination. Indigenous organisations are currently established and operating as agents of government to deliver programs and policies that the community had no part in designing. (P 7)

Thus, the regional self-governance proposal aims to give the Indigenous community greater control over the development and design of policy and legislation related to community development. Most of the Indigenous organisations in the region are set up under an Aboriginal community controlled model whereby each organisation has its own board of directors who get elected by members of the organisation. Most participants in this project agreed that when the organisations were first established in the early 1970s, the Western governance model that was adopted was a good model that served its purpose for that time.

I probably don’t think that it is the best model now moving forward as the organisations and that have evolved. A lot of the organisations when they were first set up were basically to meet the needs of our mob here – they weren’t getting met from mainstream organisations. But now, a lot of our organisations are little mini businesses in their own right, and so the old governance structure, that old model of community control, is not fit for purpose anymore. Because to be on a board now

187

actually requires a fair depth of knowledge. The best model going forward is having boards that are mixed – that have a mixture of skill and knowledge and culture. (P 5)

The process for decision making in Indigenous communities differs from that of mainstream. Kinship, sense of community, and communal behaviours are cultural strengths. To value those relationships above all else is virtuous, but when it comes to running businesses, it has highlighted the disconnect between Western governance models and Indigenous practices. Decisions in Indigenous community organisations are often based on relationships, and risk assessment involves carefully calculating the ripple on effects and potential for conflict within family groups. Participants identified this as one of the major causes of conflict.

My experience is, and this is from working on local boards, any decision you are asked to make, the financial impact is not necessarily your first priority. Your first priority is how it looks. It’s your outward perspective and who you are actually supporting, and that is a moral dilemma that every board faces, and that is the first thing that we have to address before you look at your, um, balance sheet because you can always employ someone with them skills, but you can’t employ someone with the moral compass. Our biggest problem is making moral decisions based on the right parameters. (P 1)

The above contention was identified as a significant barrier to community members not pursuing roles in Indigenous leadership:

We don’t deal with conflict very well, so we do surround ourselves with like-minded people who will support us. It is also a weakness, though too, because, um yeah, if they stop believing in what you believe in, that means that that is gone away. That powerbase really has gone away. (P 5)

The community’s fragmentation has resulted in a lack of new leaders coming through who are prepared to take on important roles within the community, although not all participants agreed, with one citing a lack of opportunity rather than aspiration:

There is a lack of leadership among our young people. If you are asking someone older, if you are asking someone younger, they have got plenty of examples, they have got plenty of support, particularly those who are in that community space already. But the people they chose to recognise, you may not recognise as being a leader or others may not recognise as being a leader. The truth is, they have got more support than people like you, or I care to recognise. Because they have access to things that we couldn’t even imagine, and that doesn’t just mean social media. That means mainstream 188

support as well – schools, universities, programs, you know. They have got friends with rich parents that they are only happy to try and manipulate. But I think with our biggest problem being ourselves, the only way to overcome that is to put people in charge that aren’t, well, that fit the criteria but aren’t tarnished by, umm, our bullshit. (P 1)

If the purpose is to affirm the proposition and process for how to achieve prosperity as an example and secure a safe and prosperous future for Indigenous people on Yorta Yorta country, then it is necessary to understand the role of community governance and to assess the extent to which the current processes meet the needs of the community. There was no disagreement that the community should seek an alternative governance model that provides direction on the application of a Goulburn Murray Regional Plan.

WHAT HAS THE COMMUNITY LEARNED? The community has been trying to develop and implement a prosperity plan since the 1980s with the establishment of the Koori Resource and Information Centre (KRIC). The KRIC was a cultural hub to set the community’s strategic vision.

KRIC has always just been about family and community, meeting after meeting and coffee after coffee, and not really understanding it or having perspective because you are always in it. Not understanding strategically what was happening until after, but KRIC has always been important for the independence of community. It’s maintained things from service, organisations reliant on agreements and whatnot with government. It’s to innovate and nurture our really ancient style of leadership and intelligence, relationships and inclusion and autonomy. It ticks every box in terms of trying to do everything that other services can’t. It’s to be more adaptive and respond quickly to trends around us, whether regional, state or national. (P 18)

The resource centre provided a space for the community to assess and evaluate trends and find innovative ways to improve Indigenous people's outcomes on Yorta Yorta. Kaiela Institute, when it was known as the Shepparton Policy and Planning Unit, undertook a community voices survey of approximately 300 respondents in the Goulburn Murray region in 2009. This survey was supported by the compact Aboriginal leaders signed with State, Commonwealth and Local Governments in 2003 at the commencement of the COAG (Synopsis Review of the COAG Trial Evaluations, 2006) trial in Shepparton.

189

The results of the survey indicated that there was a strong appetite for a more strategic approach to regional self-governance. However, the community has learned a lot over the preceding years. The Kaiela Institute developed a regional self-governance model proposal and undertook a significant community consultation process. Through that process, the organisation was able to engage with senior representatives from each of the other identified Indigenous organisations in the region. The initial consultations were well attended, and there was good engagement in the discussions. However, there was a significant delay in the process of consultations and the ability to work with government to implement or trial the proposals.

Leadership among the Indigenous community has undergone substantial change over the past five years. Participants described how it became increasingly difficult to continually bring people along with the regional plan.

There are individuals who are not in favour of a regional self-governance model, and as a result, there have been a few of the local Indigenous community-based organisations who have not been engaged in a proactive way. (P 7)

The lack of willingness of all regional ACCOs to engage in the regional self-governance proposal was recognised by one participant, who stated:

I don’t reckon people really care too much, as long as the servicing’s occurring, and it really doesn’t really matter if they have a board or not. As long as the servicing is happening, people are happy, and those who are not getting the service will kick up a stink. I don’t think it’s very strategic. (P 9)

Bringing Down the Silos Participants expressed that community organisations currently lack a coordinated and overarching collective vision and tend to look after their own organisations as a result of government policies that have community organisations compete for limited funding that is often distributed from the same bucket of money:

The democracy that occurs in our community now means families are being pitted against each other to be in control of the resource allocation, which currently underpins our economy in a sense, so I think we haven’t really understood it. We’ve

190

been pretty passive really in our engagement with each other and with government and challenged. (P 7)

The following quotes represent many participants’ frustration about the ACCOs currently operating in silos, in a fragmented environment and not only not effectively working together but, in some cases, opposing each other.

The barrier is organisations that continue to work in silos and, you know, that not coming together with one voice. It’s based on the old ego stuff and the power. That’s for the barriers. (P 5)

I guess we’ve been conditioned to work in silos and to compete for the same bucket of money, so this is really a way to try and bring down those silos, bring the community back together to set priorities based on our interpretation of what’s happening here. (P 11)

The structures and systems established during the formation of these important community organisations had the specific intent of addressing the crisis occurring at the time. While the organisations and those structures served a purpose, there was no long-term sustainable vision for the services. Therefore, the organisations evolved into individual service delivery agencies with no overarching community collaboration. The community must modify behaviours to achieve its vision of a more effective, holistic approach, an approach that is more accountable to the community it serves. These changes are a priority for the community to work together for collective impact to bring down the silos.

Well, my dream is to sit all the CEOs in this region or people who are committed to sit around the table and say ... I would love to see a big pile of money, and we all share it evenly, and we say, well, what are you doing in that space, you know? … I don’t know. I just see this because I just think how do I look at this region, and I think we are rich in culture, we are rich in resources, but we are governed by government and their funding and their competition. (P 2)

A more inclusive approach to address the silos and fragmentation would see the community come together and collaborate on collective outcomes to reflect and learn from ineffective strategies. There was no disagreement that the community is at a critical stage for change, but participants acknowledged the fear associated with change, particularly when the change is unknown.

191

I think part of it is about working for common objectives ... I think having a mutual understanding of the objectives and those objectives are commonly held, I think that is crucial. It is about providing options, providing people with models that show better outcomes. I think people are afraid of change, whether they are Koori or non-Koori. People are afraid of giving up something that they have fought hard for. I think it’s about ensuring there is an inclusive governance model. I think it’s about providing people with accountability and transparency. I think all those things are critical. (P 15)

Indigenous organisations were created to address the failure of mainstream services to provide access for Indigenous peoples in need. Indigenous people coming off the missions and moving into the townships were not able to access basic services or have their rights addressed and were not afforded the same opportunities as other Australians.

So, the organisations have its history grounded and centred on servicing a need, filling a void or a gap in access and service delivery, and I think these are the things that will always come into play. Whether it’s now or into the future, it is about, what’s our purpose, what it exists for and, if we’re going to have a governance structure, who oversees that governance structure? (P 12)

The organisations are reflective of the people, and the measurement of success from an Indigenous perspective is about whether the organisation will meet the needs of the people. Despite early challenges, community controlled organisations have developed into multifaceted organisations that cater to all the needs of the community, including health, housing, justice, families, and culture (Marles et al., 2012; Foley 1991). In that context, the local Indigenous organisations are already well established and, to some degree, feel a strong sense of financial security and are relatively content being able to service the day-to-day needs of the community.

The play at the moment, for all of us, is a lot of us have already been funded and set up. So that earlier piece, the comment I made about fiefdoms, who’s prepared to let go of their fiefdom, who’s prepared to want to say have it? Let’s sit down because at the end of the day, who is best set up to service the people? (P 16)

The funding that goes into the community is enough to meet the day-to-day service requirements for each of the organisations that are currently operating in silos. The proposal being put forward is about advocating for a different approach that requires the community

192

to work collectively to set regional priorities based on local evidence and operate more cost- effectively – the point being ‘collectively’. Most participants agreed that, from an organisational perspective, the community is not working collectively at the moment.

Look, I think for me can I see it happening in the future? Absolutely. When I say future, does it mean the next five or so years? Maybe, but what that’s going to mean is … that means a lot of soul searching for a lot of leaders and a lot of boards and community about how they address and look at that. Should it just be the crew bucket you should be tapping into, or is there a mainstream bucket we should be hitting? (P 12)

However, not everyone agreed that collaboration was a key priority:

I don’t think it’s the collaboration as the primary objective. Collaboration is well … how do you drive that? There are lots of different graphs or indicators for that. If you were to say this was our priority for this region, I would like to see where in research this is a priority. The sense of urgency that I talk about, what do people think about that as a priority? (P 18)

Somehow amongst the ‘community politics,’ there is evidence that the community has been able to maintain unwritten and unspoken forms of respectful protocols. For the most part, it appears each of the organisations and their leaders tends to follow those protocols.

People still go about their business, and although, like the footy club mostly respects the education space, and the education space doesn’t go and argue, and they respect the football club and that space and the community they’re working with. I guess all of the organisations are sort of similar in that they try and stick to what they’re doing in their silo without being disrespectful to somebody else. (P 10)

In all sectors – government, business, community, or within the Indigenous community – the elements of working effectively with and for the Indigenous community are fundamentally based on trust and mutual respect. With so much emphasis on looking after relationships when community organisations and leaders interact, there are certain protocols in place to protect those relationships. Despite the high prevalence of fragmentation and division, it appears the community leaders, to some degree, still maintain those respectful boundaries.

Developing a comprehensive plan to achieve a more inclusive and collaborative approach is required to overcome fragmentation and bring down the organisational silos. The community leaders and organisations must come together to learn from ineffective strategies that 193

continue the cycle of disadvantage and the division between organisations that, in effect, service the same community. The proposed plan should be embedded in the community’s policy and procedures, so they are not reliant on individuals in leadership positions at any one time.

Yeah, to ask what would a potential regional governance model going forward look like, and I think, but sometimes you’ve got to have that because it wouldn’t be at your first meeting that you’d get it. Your fourth meeting, you’d probably land on something that was starting to look like the map because I think you have to allow for anger, aggression, emotions, all to come out, and then once people are through that, then it’s about saying, what does the future hold for our children? What does the future hold for me, and what will it look like in the context of treaty and self-determination? (P 12)

Regional Self-governance It is useful to think of governance as being about how people choose to collectively organise themselves to manage their own affairs, share power and responsibilities, decide for themselves what kind of society they want for their future, and implement those decisions ("Indigenous Governance Toolkit," 2020). Good governance is essential for successful and effective management of Indigenous organisations and program delivery (Morley, 2015). Indigenous organisations were established in the 1970s out of a need for Indigenous people to access essential mainstream services such as health, housing, and justice (Eckermann, 2010; Morley, 2015; "NACCHO History: Introduction – The need for NACCHO," 2020).

I think the majority of Aboriginal organisations have been established because of the failure of government and mainstream to provide adequate services to the Aboriginal community. ACCOs were established because government and the health systems didn’t provide culturally appropriate, Koori-specific health, and Aboriginal people were locked out of the health systems. For example, the hospital – Aboriginal women in Echuca had to give birth on the verandah at Echuca Base Hospital. Aboriginal Legal Service was established because of the over-representation of Aboriginal people in the justice system and the failure of the Justice Department to provide equal outcomes and law for Aboriginal people as non-Aboriginal people. They were built because the structures in place were actively working against Aboriginal people. (P 15)

With the establishment of Indigenous organisations in the 1970s, the community needed to have a governance model. Although the organisations were community controlled, they still had a responsibility to oversee the running of community businesses to ensure cultural 194

oversight, control, authority, and autonomy on all aspects of the organisations (Hoffmann et al., 2012) and also allowed the organisations to meet business and mainstream administration and legal requirements.

The concept of Indigenous governance is not the same as organisational governance. The Western concept of governance is a crucial component of operating an effective organisation and is required under legal obligations through the government requirements of incorporated businesses. In contrast, Indigenous governance has a strong focus on relationships, networks, family, and community (Morley, 2015).

The difference between Western and Indigenous governance is within the social, cultural, spiritual, and ethical principles and values that have been passed down from generation to generation for thousands of years. This influences how people relate to each other and how decisions get made and form the foundation for how things are done. Indigenous organisations cannot operate solely off the Western concept of governance; this would create disconnection from the innate cultural tradition and vice versa.

This study demonstrates the current leaders are interested in restructuring the current community governance and strengthening the internal relationships as a priority, as is developing a shared vision and agenda based on the reciprocity of mutual respect, trust, honesty, and integrity. However, the first critical challenge has been to engage all current leaders in the conversation. The second is to provide a safe space where their important insight can contribute to suitable solutions. A new governance model needs to ensure it meets the community’s needs, first and foremost, while also meeting requirements of the Western governance and reflecting the community's cultural values.

The Commissioner for Social Justice, Mick Gooda, describes how:

Indigenous peoples have governed ourselves since time immemorial in accordance with our traditional laws and customs. When we speak of Indigenous governance, we are not referring to the pre-colonial state. Rather, we are referring to contemporary Indigenous governance: the more recent melding of our traditional governance with the requirement to effectively respond to the wider governance environment.

195

(Social Justice Report: Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Justice Commissioner 2012, p. 90)

From a community organisational perspective, several internal and external factors were identified. These relate to regional self-governance that seems to hinder the organisations' ability to progress.

External factors include:

• Not enough financial resources • Lack of sustainable funding with most organisations only offered 12-month contracts • Reporting requirements to government • Government policies and priorities direct programs and, in turn, diminish the community’s ability to self-determine.

Internal factors include:

• Currently, regional self-governance is not sustainable • Governing positions are voluntary. Therefore it is difficult to fill positions • Current leaders are in high demand, and that limits their ability to contribute effectively: Sometimes I feel like, oh my god, I am on about 20 committees, but I am … you have to be; you have to do this to make sure that your voice is being heard or that you are speaking on behalf of the community. You have to be on these committees and governance. (P 18)

• Community politics are impacting organisational solidarity and the ability to work collaboratively. • Currently, there are no succession plans in terms of community leadership Getting them [the next generation of leaders] to understand the responsibilities that they have of an organisation that yet again is in the millions with assets and what we are doing here and their responsibility. And, you know, you talk to some of the board and the elders that have done their time, and they are like, ‘well, who is going to do it after I pass on?’ and I worry about that because we do need young people to step up and understand the system. I worry about that, and I don’t know how they are going to do it. Because, well, I am very passionate about it. (P 2)

196

• The regional self-governance proposal being put forward by the Kaiela Institute is seeking support from all levels of government to divert all Indigenous funding for the Goulburn Murray region to an established Indigenous representative body. For the moment, it is called the Algabonyah Community Cabinet.

The Community Cabinet is where representatives (leaders, initially representatives from each of the organisations) meet to set priorities and make decisions about who would be best suited to service different components of the community. In effect, the model would override all current power and decision-making processes for each of the Indigenous organisations in the region and require organisations to work more collaboratively.

I think you need to look at each individual organisation to see how they are operating and look at their outcomes. I have heard people say there are too many Aboriginal organisations, but you know, one could be about sport, one could be about health or housing, and one could be about employment. To say that we should do away with all those boards and put all the money into one bucket, I think that is a local decision. I would have some concerns with it. It has got to be owned by the local community, and I think people are worried about where’s their place in the sun. Where is their place in the sun? Will they lose out? So, I think looking at a regional governance model, people need to be convinced that this is the best way to manage outcomes, which is duplication of services. It would have benefits, but it would also have its own challenges, and I would imagine that would be quite difficult. (P 14)

Without unity in community, the progress towards a regional self-governance model has been slow. From the interviews, it was clear that there is a strong appetite for change, with every participant agreeing the community would benefit from a more strategic and collaborative approach. However, the majority of participants highlighted internal division and community politics as key challenges that need to be addressed before progress can be made. Simultaneously, a well thought out and structured approach is needed to generate a more united community. The key constituent required is trust, and this goes back to the issue of the current state of leadership in the community and the lack of a cohesive vision and a shared voice. There was strong support for the rejuvenation of the current governance structures, and most participants had a different idea about the best way to move forward:

197

… that this required one organisation/leader to exit the current ‘battle’ by being willing to show a structured way forward that was altruistic – by design, excluded an economic or power benefit to her/him and their organisation’s board. (P 1)

All participants agreed that a new regional model of self-governance is necessary. However, the lack of trust around which organisation/leadership would be best suited to have those conversations and engage the community and ultimately take the lead with implementing the model is a considerable hurdle. A significant amount must be done in the community before the work can be progressed any further. None of the participants interviewed had a clear idea about how to progress. Some of the suggestions were: waiting for the next generation of leaders to come through; overthrowing current leaders in the community (but unsure how that would happen); or the current leaders meeting and working through the issues until they can reach a consensus, no matter how long it takes.

The Yorta Yorta community has invested significantly in developing and implementing a regional self-governance model. It is important to keep the momentum going and for the community to keep pushing the boundaries and working towards an inclusive process. This will require broad consultation to accomplish the economic, cultural, and social outcomes the community aspires to when Indigenous people are fully participating in the social, cultural, spiritual, and economy of the wider region. Everyone will benefit, including the broader community, from the creation of new jobs, an injection of wealth into regional economies, and an enriched cultural life.

BARRIERS A proposition put to COAG by the community was self-governance. The COAG worked with the community to appoint a community working group in 2008 to put together a proposal:

… our regional self-governance proposal is there. We still haven’t got there yet. We’ve had a frustrating multitude of CEOs, and the cultural competency is part of it. When you rely on governments for funding, and you have different people coming in and out all the time, like bureaucrats, ministers, and you are constantly having to reconvince people, you have to keep doing that all the time. It’s been unstable, especially in the last two years. Although, if you measure it over 100 years or three years or five years, it seems like the heat of the battle, and you might see some big successes. (P 7)

198

The community has been investing in regional self-governance since this time. Over the last few years, unstable leadership was one of the barriers identified to progress the region’s self- governance proposal. Each time there is a change in leadership, the community must start again and ‘reconvince’ the new leadership of the community’s proposition. Also, there have been several changes in mainstream leadership and governments; the community is frustrated with having to retell the same story repeatedly. This also illustrates that change is very slow, and while the community sometimes does not see the change immediately, there is hope that there is change that is incremental over a long time.

Another barrier identified was the process for needs-based funding, described as ‘a long and tedious process’ (P 2). The needs-based funding model forces the economy for Indigenous communities to be built around selling disadvantage. From an organisational perspective, the higher the disadvantage, the more likely the organisation is to secure funding. Therefore, currently, it is in an organisation’s financial interest to count and report on deficits.

The language that we use is reflective of what we have been taught, and we have been taught to tell a sad story over and over and over again. It is like a kid – you throw a tantrum, and you usually get what you want, so you keep throwing the tantrum, and so you tell the sad story, and this is what you are going to get, you are going to keep getting this, you get the deficit model, but you also get the deficit attitude with it. That’s why people look now to cultural affirmation and the opportunity for cultural expression as a way to try and understand whether we can be a part of the economies. (P 20)

The community has put together a proposal to address the barriers. The proposal seeks to see the government’s move away from the deficit language centred on the disadvantage of Indigenous people to one of investment.

Overcoming the Barriers Part of the community’s prosperity plan, which aims to implement measures across every domain, is a regional data unit that provides an evidence base to inform regional priorities and provides a sound, transparent, and accountable structure for decision-making.

I reckon a plan might be … well, we have been doing it since 2001 or 1998 from my perspective. Is that something that gets built over a year, or three years, or five years, or is it something that gets built over 15 years? It doesn’t matter how long it is. But, 199

when you are building something, you have planned stages. What are the stages of the development of a plan? Like the architect comes along and draws up the plan for the place, and then the builder comes along and builds it. You know, he looks at the plan, and he knows what to do. We have a lot of infrastructure in the Aboriginal community, but who is the architect and who are the builders, and what are the tools and resources we need? We don’t have anyone doing strategic thinking and planning. (P 7).

The community is in the consultation, design, and implementation of the trials phase. Even so, without a proper plan and concurrent and ongoing evaluative framework, there is a lack of transparency and a coordinated and strategic approach. Another key component of the prosperity plan is the regional governance model that the community believes will empower them to influence, advise, and direct investment into the region by facilitating decision making and priority setting that is grounded in empirical evidence, giving rise to a rights-based model (Goulburn Murray Empowered Communities Report 2017). All participants agreed that a regional governance body is a good idea and that the community as a whole would benefit from a more cohesive approach.

The community’s emergent regional self-governance model is unique. It is this community’s early attempt at integrated, collaborative decision making within the Indigenous community and between the Indigenous and broader communities. There were conflicting opinions about the best way to overcome the identified community barriers. There was general agreement about what constitutes parity, and most leaders in their own space still have the best interest of the community at heart, but there was no consensus on what it could look like and how it might be achieved.

By embedding whatever principles we have identified and encourage or being mindful of those principles in everything that we implement. Yeah, it’s just embedding it and encouraging the growth around that. Good promotion – we aren’t very good at promoting good things and showcasing that, and whether we do that in a social get- together, it could have a cultural element. (P 4)

Participants suggested that better use of existing infrastructure and resources could be achieved if the community was working better together:

200

I don’t think we put enough effort into infrastructure that serves us, like schools and educations centres and businesses, industry. I think there is in a design piece they would be the sorts of cultural behaviours that you want to shift, and how you would go about shifting those behaviours and knowledge is one of the keys to that. (P 7)

This was one of the reasons behind the region’s proposed Munarra Centre for Regional Excellence.

It is important to build a systematic approach that is inclusive of early childhood to aged care in the communities and develop the cultural competency of the rest of the region through education and universities. When those leaders are graduating and taking up roles in the Indigenous communities, they are already informed and feel confident that they have a good understanding of what their role is:

There is no reason why we can’t go out and get an education and get access to a good job; whatever career that you want to go in, there is no reason. I think it’s our own mindset sometimes that stops us and being able to not work in a setting where you don’t feel welcome, but we have to give our kids tools on how to work in that setting. It takes a lot of courage to walk in and work with people who are somewhat seen as enemies. Yeah, a lot of courage. (P 3)

From participants' accounts, Indigenous people are experts on matters that affect past, present, and future wellbeing. The experiences, perceptions, and ideas of Indigenous community members must form the base of any initiative that aims to achieve prosperity and parity.

COMMUNITY POLITICS INTERNAL DIVISION Indigenous organisations are of fundamental importance, and over the past four decades, they have become integral to the Indigenous communities to identify and deliver services relevant to each community. Therefore, Indigenous community governance is an essential part of all Indigenous communities and a means for Indigenous people to participate in the wider community. Martin (2003, p. 126) suggests ACCOs also provide an outlet for the Indigenous community ‘to advocate their own interests and through which a wide range of services is provided to them.’

201

The commonly identified factors in successful Indigenous organisations are based on good, effective, and accountable governance, where the community has control and ownership of the organisations and feels empowered and an essential part of the decision-making (Limerick, 2009). Good governance is understood to be vital in addressing the social, cultural, and economic disadvantage for Indigenous communities (Martin, 2003). Many Indigenous organisations struggle with the stock standard hierarchical government-enforced governance models that do not appear to align with the traditional Indigenous values and decision making in the Indigenous community. The problems with community governance are as much about the impact of government interventions and policies as about the sorts of skills and leadership required to run what are often multi-million dollar organisations (Pearson, 2000a).

Equally, the promotion of new dispersed governance modes emphasising participation at the local and community levels rather than hierarchical state-instituted policies and program delivery seems essential when these latter have manifestly failed. Furthermore, such forms of dispersed governance would seem to be consistent with Aboriginal calls for self-determination, and to offer an alternative to the current Commonwealth Government policy framework which rejects self-determination, emphasises service delivery through mainstream agencies, and stresses the equality of rights and opportunities for all Australian citizens and their acceptance of mutual responsibilities. (Martin, 2003, p. 125)

While several challenges were identified throughout the interviews for these relatively young organisations, many of them having only emerged in the 1970s (Eckermann, 2010), a common recurring theme was often referred to as ‘community politics’ or ‘internal division’. The politics and internal division were evident and identified as a key challenge this community is facing:

I think the biggest challenge with community, especially from my time there, are the relationships, the interactions, the alignment where all the community are sitting at the same time. And that is usually at a lot of different levels or a lot of different areas across the community; it can sometimes … Well, I think it hindered [the community] … Even though from the outside people coming to visit would say it is doing so well. It could have, or it could be even further down the track. Internally, there has been internal politics and families and structures and cultural sort of differences that has hindered the progress which probably could have been made on top of the great stuff that has already been done. (P 9)

202

The community is fractured, and politics are caught somewhere between historical proceedings and a new generation that has resulted in disharmony, anger, and resentment that finds the community divided by the power of protest, seeking to work within the confinements of Indigenous and non-Indigenous governance structures. ‘I don’t know how to get there, but the current system doesn’t work. It keeps us segregated and divided, um, and that is because of the historical factors that each of our leaders have experienced (P 1). Understanding where the conflict originated may help to find a way to address it or find a solution to this problem that had been identified.

My grandfather, his name was Ronald Morgan, wrote a book, and he says something about this [the relationship between Aboriginal people], and he wrote this in 1952 on Australia Day. A letter to the Editor of the Riverine Herald in Echuca. He said this is a time for our people where how we talk about each other is critical; it’s a critical time. He had this fear for where we were going as a people, and he had this fear about the way we talk about each other, this negatively impacting on how the broader community see us … Gee, he was a wise man because he could see that then, and it was breaking his heart in ’52. (P 13)

This participant refers to the book Reminiscences of the Aboriginal station at Cumeragunga and its aboriginal people (Morgan, 1952). Ronald Morgan writes about being a descendant of the Aborigines, being bought up on Cumeragunga, which he describes as:

… a place and a people that have been a centre of controversy for the last three years. And while I am on this subject, I will say that a lot of the controversy reflects on the outcome of expulsion. And many decent living Aborigines who, living in poor circumstance, perhaps through adverse conditions or misfortune, are only looked upon as exiled for wrongdoing in some way cut loose or escaped from Government control (Morgan, 1952, p. 317).

Participants’ reflections, particularly those of older participants, suggested the fallout originated with the establishment of the Indigenous organisations in the 1970s. The community members who worked hard to advocate for and establish these much-needed resources found themselves caught between conforming to Western governance models and meeting the needs of the community. Some of the conflicts in the community can be traced to family group disputes in the 1970s. There was a clear sense the community is not working

203

together, not working towards a shared vision – both the Indigenous and non-Indigenous communities.

The only way for this region is for all the key people to come together and have a shared agenda and a shared vision, and even though people are doing things differently, we must be all working towards that shared vision. Um, you know, you probably need to step it out in … probably not this generation but the next generation and then the next generation evaluates whether we’ve, you know, how we are travelling, evaluating it. Whether we are working towards that shared vision or we’ve veered off the pathway a bit. (P 4)

But in that, that means not only our community but every one that is working in our space, Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal, we have to set the agenda and the vision and then tell everyone else this is how it is going to be. (P 5)

I think the biggest thing that’s brought that about is not having true open, transparent, community consultation that’s engaging with the whole community and family group stuff because I just don’t believe that family group stuff can work anymore. I just don’t, and it’s no dishonouring to that, my mum was fully in that, my dad was fully in that. (P 13)

Participants expressed a need to review the current governance structures and the process for appointing the board of directors within the Indigenous organisations’ boards. In a small community, it is not uncommon to find family groups filling both boards and management positions within community organisations; the reality is most of the Indigenous community members are related in one way or another. It has become a reoccurring situation in terms of leadership becoming a political advantage.

When you put people at the front of the decision making – and that is not just Koori people, it happens to everyone – then it will always come down to who’s best serviced, what the model is and who’s best to get what. I think there might need to be a little bit more work done in terms of that model and what that looks like. Because I think our community, whilst going through all of this over the last 50 years or more, also had the experience where they’ve had individuals who have been at the tops of the trees and not looked after the needs of all of their community – and just looked after the needs of them and a few. (P 12)

There was some evidence of the ruminant hurt and anger as a result of the Yorta Yorta Native Title decision, particularly against the government as the responsible party, but also internally relationships were damaged and have not been repaired. On the one hand, it is something

204

the community needs to address. It is a symptom of the past that will continue to fester without a resolution. On the other hand, the details of who and how to address the issue, as well as the risks that this presents, will be difficult. This is a particular challenge that is important to consider in terms of the community’s plan to move forward to create a functional and sustaining regional self-governance approach that sees the community united, working in harmony towards a collective vision.

The tension between community and community leaders inadvertently has a ripple effect for various roles and relationships. Participants were asked to describe their understanding of the community division and their thoughts on addressing this issue from a governance perspective.

These would have to be hand-picked people. It wouldn’t be a democratic or a local process. It would have to be people that anybody could strongly trust. And I’ll be honest; there would be people like just couldn’t be involved in the process purely because they are too influential ... (P1)

By confronting the challenges posed in the community’s quest to find a successful regional self-governance model, it is important not to lose sight of the organisations' success since establishment in the 1970s. The growth of these organisations over the last 40 years has been the result of prominent Indigenous leaders pushing to improve the overall quality of life, health, and wellbeing of the community.

What is it about sport and success? What is it about success in that domain that is normalised and acceptable yet in relation to self-governance community has challenges around how it looks? This notion of giving oneself permission to define what the future is, and do we do that well enough? Sport is about the now, not about the future – everyone is part of a team when you step on the court or the oval. You have a clear goal for success, and that is winning that game. But in everyday life, we are opposing each other, we don’t prepare as a team, and we don’t play as a team. (P 19)

The first and vital step in addressing disparities is strengthening relationships that are based on honesty, mutual respect, and a genuine commitment to building and maintaining a shared agenda in both the Indigenous community and the wider community:

205

I think the journey of Rumbalara that is a part of growing with the successes and embracing them but also making sure that everyone comes along and moves along together. I don’t think we have done that as well as we could have. (P 17)

What Needs to Be Done? Former and current leaders in the community have fought for many years for the rights of Indigenous people living on Yorta Yorta country. Established organisations that cover almost every aspect of the community’s needs from birth and early years, through to education, employment, health, housing, and justice, have a complex governance structure that has resulted in them working in isolation. The community has been looking for a way to ‘transcend, being able to transcend oppressive policies and behaviours to take a more innovative approach. Sharpening the tools, trying to sharpen the tools depending on what the challenge is’ (P 18). Reiterating that the community is really looking for a way to rise above the oppression and look for tools, to manage the different challenges they face at any one time. They are looking to form a more collaborative approach and have been encouraging both organisations and individuals to engage in a conversation and have a seat at the regional negotiation table to talk about what the future could look like.

The intention is to achieve that by building regional accountability for improving the social, economic, and cultural outcomes in a measurable and assessable way using a community- established negotiations table. The negotiations table is multilevel, including participation in policy-making sought from governments at all levels (Federal, State, and local), as well as industry. To date, establishing the negotiations table has been challenging; time, commitment and resourcing, as well as current leaders not willing to engage and some opposing the proposal altogether. There are two apparent reasons this occurred:

Established leaders are at the helm of funded services. There is a trust/perception issue that their advocacy is influenced by their organisational or individual interests rather than the whole community's interests.

Colonisation is built on a ‘divide and conquer’ paradigm that continues to create conflict within the community.

206

Unless there is a unified approach to advocacy and investment, it could potentially have bad outcomes as it seems to engender distrust. Unity is a prerequisite for moving forward, and advocacy needs to make space for collaboration. Participants acknowledged a significant change in the community since most organisations were established in the region, which varies between 20 and 40 years ago.

There needs to be a setting where we can come together and talk about how we are going to do business for the future. Different dilemma now to when organisations were set up 30 years ago. Things have changed. We have to be able to come, and you would have to have a really good facilitator to be able to set some rules on how we want that gathering to be to get some good outcomes for community. (P 4) The point for me is – are people prepared to collectively come together to do that, and which model of collectiveness do we talk about and governance. Because one of the things history tells us is some of the models that are created without the full involvement of all of the community doesn’t work. Therefore even you were to come back and readdress it in a different way to the community because it’s already been out there and put up, people will always have something negative to say. If history has told us anything about our communities both here and across the state, is you’ve got to make the whole community in that meeting room feel empowered, because when they feel empowered – and I mean everybody who turns up into that hall – when they feel that they’re valued, their voice is heard and they are empowered through that, then you have a working model. But if they don’t think that’s the case and they think people like you and I and a couple of others have been in a room and developed it, they’re never going to fly for it. Not purely because there wasn’t goodwill behind it, but because of the way it was done and for me, that’s always going to be the challenge because I can tell you, I know at least probably 30 good initiatives over the last 25 years that have come out. But because the way in which they were constructed didn’t have that community collaboration to it, meant they didn’t fly well. And that’s sometimes the difference between what works well in our community and what doesn’t. (P 12) There were conflicting ideas on how the community can work towards a cohesive approach and better collaboration. Some of the suggestions included: a significant review of the current community governance structures, a renewal of the current leadership within the community addressing nepotism and family influence by moving to a more transparent process generational change, waiting for the next generation of young leaders to come through.

207

It would be generational. I mean, like in my mind, I can’t think of any other way to fix it other than to have that … that … that young group of leaders. That’s the answer in the first instance, but then the issues that will come with that, and it will be hard. The issues that will come with that is the perceived disrespect to the current and all the leaders and the impact that has on their families. That will take a generation to absorb and to really rectify. It will be the generation after that – my kids, your kids’ age that will fall into the category of supporting one another, and that’s probably even too quick. There is no solution that is going to happen straight away. My biggest problem is that nobody is trying to draw up a proper plan that addresses it even in the long term. (P 1)

One participant was adamant the current leadership in the community has contributed to the internal division, suggesting there need to be age restrictions implemented to address the issue:

Positions of power or responsibility, I think only people older than 18 but younger than 35 should be gifted those positions or appointed or nominated or however you want to phrase it. I think anyone older than 35 or 38 is tarnished, scarred – no, I do … I think they have been exposed to too much family history or politics or bullshit that dirties their view of … well, I just think anybody older than 35 has an established view of how things should be and generally are tarnished. You can’t … you could not ask anybody older than 35 to remain on unbiased because the truth is that [they] had so much life experience they have got a view and it’s not in the best interest of the community, it’s only in the best interest for their family groups. (P 1)

This participant thought changing the age to hand over the responsibilities to a younger demographic would be one way to address the division and internal community politics. This gives an insight into the fragmentation and the vulnerability of leadership and governance inside the community and the eagerness of younger leaders to participate more effectively in Indigenous leadership in the community.

Others argued that it is up to the current leaders to sort out the differences, acknowledge the past, and be respectful and mindful of the contribution, passion, and drive of the current leadership. It is up to them to ‘sit together and say what they want for the future, and then the future takes over (P 2). Acknowledging this generation of leaders has been:

…very respectful of the Elders, but they are not going to be here forever, and they have done their time, and they have done an amazing time. I think they are just two 208

incredible people, and there have been incredible people in this community before them that have done amazing things, but they need to pass their knowledge on too, and all the great stuff that they have done for us to be able to keep doing. What they have done. Like I said, it’s my dream that we can all sit around the table, and these two key people need to bring us together. (P 2) The next step is an intensive community consultation process. Significant planning and careful consideration are required for how the consultations will be structured, who will lead the consultations, who will be consulted, who will compile and analyse the results, and a clear timeline must be adhered to. The community has learned from previous attempts that the time between consultation, development, and implementation is crucial. Regional agency and institutional consultation need to be undertaken to assess the perceived barriers, challenges, and opportunities and a critical policy analysis to map the current state of available investment, policy, and other initiatives for the region.

Further, a facilitated design of initiatives, policies, and investment structures with a broad group of participants across the region – within both the Indigenous and non-Indigenous communities – that meet the needs and expectations of the broader community and align with outcomes is required. These need to be culturally grounded as a priority and reflect the Indigenous community expectations around prosperity and development (as opposed to Western values). Consultation is crucial: community consultation must be a priority from the beginning, with continuous engagement to develop and test ideas and stages.

GOVERNMENT Indigenous communities are trying to re-identify themselves, largely with tribal areas or clan bases, particularly with the Victorian state treaty process currently occurring. However, many Indigenous communities have not been able to take time away from the day-to-day operations of crisis interventions to talk through the current social, cultural, and economic position and understand what has happened in the process, what the impact is, and how the community is positioned as a result.

Most Indigenous organisations are heavily reliant on Federal and State government funding. To date, it has been about what the community want or need to portray to government to access government funds. There does not seem to be a space to undertake important

209

background work that brings the community together to acknowledge the history and the impact of the past, including government policies of protection, assimilation, self- determination, and reconciliation. Some of those policies have since been recognised as contributing to the destruction of Indigenous kin and culture and social order, particularly those that saw the separation of children from their parents – known as ‘the Stolen Generations’ (Bringing them home: learning about the separation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children from their families, 2005).

Indigenous people have done their best to resist government legislation. This is reflected in letters written by Indigenous leaders such as William Cooper, Sir Douglas Nicholls, and Jack Patten (Patten, 1938) advocating for citizenship rights (discussed in the introduction chapter). The community’s prosperity plan would give the Indigenous community more power to hold the government, the region, and organisations accountable for better outcomes for Indigenous peoples living on Yorta Yorta country. Transforming the relationship between the Indigenous community and government requires a collaborative approach both within the Indigenous community and the broader community.

They [the Indigenous community] keep putting up the same thing. ‘Oh, government’s not doing this, or giving us that and everyone else … blah blah blah.’ And I said, ‘So what are you going to do about it?’ Yeah, but, and … I said, ‘No – why, why? They [the government] are not making you stay in that space; you are making yourself stay in that space. They will continue to deal with you on the matter in which you are dealt with, and generations and your children will become the same way if you keep having that same relationship with them.’ I said, ‘Change the relationship, you will change the conversation, and you will change the way you are treated. See, they will just keep practising the same thing because it suits them. That’s the business model that they have got in place – you are a part of the business model, you are behaving the way they want you to behave in terms of that business model, and it just keeps propping up the same business model – so just stop. They are at fault, but you are at fault because you keep letting them do it to you. And you think you seen yourself, you know, as getting a financial resource for your needs, but you’re not, you’re just joining the merry-go-round – get off.’ (P 2)

210

Going from a deficit model of funding known internationally as funding ‘modalities’ (Moran, 2014) to what this community refers to as the investment model would reduce the requirements of the community to sell disadvantage:

Stop making us buy into the dominant narrative of selling disadvantage in order to get limited resources for the community. The current government approach undermines the capabilities of Indigenous people to govern themselves and reinforces the deficit narrative for Indigenous peoples. (P 10)

The biggest challenge is changing the language from deficit to investment. For the Indigenous community, this deficit narrative has been entrenched in the fabric of Australian society, and the consequences of selling disadvantage are that that is how the rest of the world then views you. What is currently funded are those stories of disadvantage, and if community organisations are unable to sell that story/narrative, then there is no funding. The governments need assessment is based on deficit, not empowerment. ‘They are only ever telling the bad side; they are only ever telling the negative, they are only ever telling the story that the government feel proud to address, they feel proud to address stories of disadvantage’ (P 1).

The proposal being put forward is about the long term, sustainable funding that will have organisations working in collaboration with each other and not fragmentation, which sees them heavily reliant on government and currently competing against each other for limited funding. This is a critical change for Indigenous organisations and governments overwhelmed by the bureaucratic tape and demands placed on them by their constituents. To get the best outcome for the community, breaking down the organisational silos and working in partnership will be required.

Deloitte’s Access Economics produced a report for the Goulburn Murray region that outlined an alternative approach for how Indigenous communities could access government funding without selling disadvantage. According to Economics (2018), an increase in economic activity would be driven by ‘higher workforce participation and productivity as Indigenous Australians see better health, education and economic outcomes that help counter current disadvantage, including intergenerational disadvantage’. The report has been used as supporting evidence 211

for a significant portion of the region’s work advocating for programs, policies, and investment.

The region’s Prosperity Plan is where the community is engaging with mainstream to reverse the narrative by suggesting mainstream has a responsibility to be inclusive, and it is not just up to the Indigenous people to fix the problem – everyone has a responsibility. The frustration expressed by participants about the process for engaging with government was evident. The community has become accustomed to operating in a cycle of disadvantage, constantly having to tell the same story to access funding.

In a meeting with the Executive Director of the Kaiela Institute and the State Minister for Aboriginal Affairs at Treasurer House, the Executive Director asked the minister to support the community’s regional self-governance proposal. The Minister replied, ‘No, it will never work; you will never get everyone to agree’ (Nixon, 2019). The Minister went on to speak about the Victorian Government’s commitment to Treaty and Aboriginal self-determination. This illustrates inconsistencies in democracy and the democratic process between community and mainstream institutions where the majority of decisions are made based on a majority vote. However, in the Indigenous organisations, the assumption is that ‘everyone has to agree’, making it seemingly impossible because not everyone will agree all the time. Everyone is entitled to their differences of opinion. This highlights hypocrisy in the Western/mainstream system: non-Indigenous people do not all agree, and that is accepted in the political process. But somehow, this is then used as an excuse for non-action, a criticism of Indigenous communities who are expected to agree on everything.

This accentuates the power imbalance and the fact that a key indigenous leader of the region still has to ask permission to self-determine and the ‘government’ still has the final say. Ironically, the minister went on to talk about treaties and self-determination. The Victorian Government say they are committed to self-determination and are working closely with Indigenous communities to improve outcomes:

For decades, Aboriginal Victorians have fought for self-determination and their right to make decisions on matters that affect their lives and communities. While Aboriginal self-determination means different things to different people, the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) described self- 212

determination as the ability for Indigenous people to freely determine their political status and pursue their economic, social and cultural development. It also describes self-determination as a right that relates to groups of people, not individuals. Government has heard from community that Aboriginal self-determination encompasses a spectrum of rights that are necessary for Aboriginal Victorians to achieve economic, social and cultural equity based on their own values and way of life. Self-determination is the key approach that has produced effective and sustainable improvement in outcomes for Indigenous people across many jurisdictions. Government action to enable self-determination acknowledges that Aboriginal Victorians hold the knowledge and expertise about what is best for themselves, their families and their communities. It appears the definition of self-determination differs between the Victorian Government and what one regional Indigenous community has developed.

There is the offer of assimilation for Indigenous peoples into mainstream, Western society. Assimilation is the only offer on the table. Indigenous people were, and to some degree are still expected to become like and live like non-Indigenous Australians. Yet discriminatory practices and policies still control many (sometimes all) aspects of Indigenous people’s lives. The Yorta Yorta people refer to this as ‘walking in two worlds’ (Algabonyah Score Card 2017), where the sense of identity and culture is important, but every day there is a requirement to put that aside to access Western education, employment, and other resources needed for life. Most of the funding that goes into the community has gone towards assimilating Indigenous peoples into Western culture. There has been limited allocation of funds towards the future sustainability of Indigenous culture, practices, and knowledge, which is a key priority for the community.

SELF-DETERMINATION Self-determination, otherwise known as self-management, was a recent government policy described as: ‘the fundamental right of Aboriginals to retain their racial identity and traditional lifestyle or, where desired, to adopt wholly or partially a European lifestyle’ ("Changing Policies Towards Aboriginal People," 2010). Tom Calma, the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Justice Commissioner, describes self-determination as ‘a process where Indigenous communities take control of their future and decide how they will address the issues facing them’ (Calma, 2006). Article 1 of both the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and the International Covenant on Social, Economic and Cultural Rights 213

(ICSECR) states that ‘All peoples have the right to self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development (Webb, 2012, p. 81). In principle, the concept of self-determination should have seen the rights of Indigenous Australians put back into the hands of the Indigenous community. The reality for Indigenous peoples is that there is a significant disconnect between the decision-making rights and the ability to self-fund.

If you look at one of the aspects of self-determination, you can’t have self- determination unless you have your own economic base where you can make decisions and support … financially support those decisions. So, for me, there is lots of challenges, lots of atrocities committed, but for me, that is the greatest atrocity. (P 8) The fundamental idea of self-determination was for the betterment of Indigenous peoples and a substantial shift in the thinking around Indigenous people and the recognition of inherent rights. However, the bureaucratic design, framework, implementation, and evaluation around the concept were highly contentious.

I think there is a whole lot of good non-Aboriginal people in government wanting to do the right thing, but also there are road blockers to self-determination. The challenge for me is parts of government, both institutionally and individually, that don’t want to let go. I imagine that is at the core of some of the issues that are confronting the Goulburn Murray region is that there are parts of the government potentially that are afraid to let go. (P 14)

Since inception, the organisations were not properly resourced and operated with limited, often short-term funding with no long-term sustainability plan or change.

I think there are better ways of doing it. I think our organisations should get guaranteed longer-term funding, and there are different programs. There are negotiations and work being done to look at options, and they may very well be in place about longer-term funding. What upsets many people is the pilot funding that goes for 12 months, and they recruit people into those positions, and they have limited time to recruit people into their program. This can take up to three years to establish to get going. It’s a good program, and then the program is threatened because of the funding cycle, even though it may be working for community, making good outcomes for community. (P 15)

214

Yet, the need to adhere to government bureaucratic requirements has resulted in the communities becoming financially dependent on government, and the cycle of disadvantage continues.

Mainly because everyone is employed in dysfunction and that disadvantage setting and for us to get funding to have employment, you have got to run the media line or the talking around or talking up our dysfunction and poor us, poor me, you can get money for that. There is no money for showing your strengths or how well you are doing – there is no money for that. (P 4)

Self-determination has been a government policy towards Indigenous peoples since 1972, acknowledging Indigenous people should have more control over their own affairs (Eckermann, 2010): ‘this process of self-determination is about you making decisions, funding decisions and having control of our things we built’ (P 8). There has been pressure for the Indigenous community to become self-sufficient. One participant argues, ‘you can’t have self- determination unless you have your own economic base where you can make decisions and support … financially support those decisions’ (P 8). For many years, Indigenous communities have been fighting for an economic foothold independent of the government that allows Indigenous people to participate in the economy and to build community wealth.

Empowering the Indigenous Community Disempowerment and the domination of governments are still from the point of dispossession. In Australia, Indigenous people are the most consulted group globally and yet are the least listened to.

At the moment, we are just like mice on a treadmill. You know, just (indicating running around in circles). Freud, I think, says doing something over and over again is the definition of craziness. Going around and around trying to get a different outcome, and you don’t. (P 4)

Former policies towards addressing the disparity between Indigenous and non-Indigenous people have failed to achieve any substantial change thus far, as this participant points out the government approach has failed to work yet no other alternatives have been invested in. The government must invest in programs that affirm cultural identity, not deny it:

215

… a bit like the courthouse [the newly built Shepparton Law Court] – the courthouse, even when Munarra [Centre for Regional Excellence] is finished, will be bigger than Munarra. I think the challenges – when you look at treaty negotiations, and the best example is Native Title and land rights. You get people who go into a White space agenda, and they are trying to lead and drive a movement, and so when you are in that advocacy role, you are that agitated role, and so on for those people, it is difficult for those people to transition into a new space where you have then got to lead and drive change. (P 8)

Significant government investment goes into places like the $73 million Shepparton Law Courts that were officially opened on Friday, 23 March 2019 ("Shepparton Law Courts Project," 2019). The community look at that investment and compare it to what goes into the sustainability of culture and community. Indigenous people cannot be empowered until they feel their cultural identity, heritage, language, spirituality, and ways of being are accepted, celebrated, and affirmed on an equal level to the broader Australian culture. ‘Everyone has a part to play, academia, businesses, local government, all three tiers of government, even our own community, we have just got to start promoting that we are successful’ (P 3).

Sarra (2015) suggests there are three things the government can do in the Indigenous policy space to make a difference:

• Acknowledge, embrace and celebrate the humanity of Indigenous Australians; • Bring us policy approaches that nurture hope and optimism rather than entrench despair; • Do things with us, not to us

The government can ensure investment and procurement benefit the Indigenous community as well as the broader community; in the words of one participant, this means: Thinking about Indigenous development as being a ‘prosperity overlay’ over broader regional development, rather than considering Indigenous development as separate and confined to the Indigenous only space. (P 7)

The commonly held assumptions that Indigenous people should abandon their own culture and assimilate into Australian society can be challenged by addressing structural racism and unconscious bias through public policy.

216

I think government allowing us to have our voice at the table and listening to our ways, the way we do it, not the way they do it or want it done. They set our rules and priorities. I think that’s key with government allowing us to have our voice and being heard. (P 2)

Changing the public narrative around Indigenous people from disadvantage to strengthening and empowering with a clear focus on celebrating Indigenous success as a shared success of the whole community ‘entrenches the thinking and the dysfunction and disadvantages (P 4).

Developing an Investment Strategy There is a challenge to engage both the Indigenous community and the wider community in developing an investment strategy. The challenge is partly a reflection of the demands on the leaders’ (both Indigenous and non-Indigenous) time and the priority to maintain organisational and community ‘silos’ rather than embracing the challenges of collaborative engagement. Indigenous people throughout Australia would benefit from the successful development and implementation of the community’s regional prosperity plan, which moves to investment rather than a deficit model. The model has the potential to create profound and significant social, cultural, economic, and political change for Indigenous peoples as it supports empowerment and self-determination principles. The model seeks fundamental change at every level, from individuals, family, and community, through to major legislation and policy changes at the highest level, for serious long-term and sustainable change for Indigenous peoples on Yorta Yorta country and elsewhere in Australia. Indigenous people have an inherent right to be equal citizens, yet they still ask for the right to be treated equally, without judgment, without stereotypes and discrimination.

A fundamental recognition that Indigenous people live in ‘two worlds’, Indigenous and non- Indigenous, and the ability to navigate and connect in both worlds is a key to health and wellbeing (Kelly, 2011, p. 16). This includes recognition of the historic context currently framing Indigenous futures, including the National Apology, resetting relationships between government and the community, or the AFL’s (Australian Football League) leadership in racial vilification and celebration of Indigenous contribution through initiatives such as the Indigenous round. It also includes the pending constitutional recognition announced by the Minister for Indigenous Australians, the Hon Ken Wyatt AM MP (Wyatt, 2020), for which

217

partners have pledged their commitment for a referendum to be held by the middle of 2021. Constitutional recognition will fundamentally change the inclusion of Indigenous peoples in the ongoing Australian story. The counterpoint to these historical moments are the ongoing challenges of social exclusion, but this agreement will be a proactive approach framed in the context of the strengths, achievements, and aspirations of the Indigenous community. Indigenous leadership revolves around relationships, an approach that is grounded in the sense of trust that takes time to build and time to maintain. The RFNC was described as ‘the wellspring of a lot of the work and the relationships, whereas the Kaiela Institute is the heart and the genius of the relationships’ (P 7).

The Yorta Yorta people have a strong track record of success in Indigenous community development and infrastructure. It comes from a grassroots community-based development approach, activating the rights to self-determination and recognising the community is in the best position to assess community needs at any given time and responding to these needs. By developing and implementing an Indigenous regional governance model and regional prosperity plan with the community and regional partners, the community believes the systemic conditions that are currently preventing attitudinal and behavioural change will begin to shift, leading to a perceived ‘repositioning of value’ of Indigenous people in the region.

TIMING OPPORTUNITIES Despite the ongoing challenges, the Kaiela Institute believes several initiatives have created the conditions for fundamental change to occur, including:

• Victoria’s policy direction around Indigenous self-determination, including the appointment of Andrew Jackomos as special advisor on Indigenous self-determination • The pursuit of Treaty in Victoria, including the introduction of the Advancing the Treaty Process with Aboriginal Victorians Bill 2018 and appointment of Jill Gallagher AO as Victorian Treaty Advancement Commissioner • The Commonwealth Government’s Empowered Communities initiative • A new focus on investment-based policies that empower Indigenous business development and procurement from Indigenous owned and operated businesses 218

• The increasing popularity of Reconciliation Action Plans amongst public and private sector organisations.

These directions are consistent with international literature that recognises successful Indigenous communities are those that take control of decision-making for their own people and place good governance at the heart of decision-making (Gould, 2017).

The Kaiela Institute as a facilitator of independent thought and leadership has been striving to place the Indigenous community at the centre of evidence-based decision-making in the region. There is momentum within the work of the Institute, including the establishment of an Interim Algabonyah Community Cabinet, composed of both community members and opt- in organisations from across the Goulburn Murray region, who are tasked with overseeing the process for establishing a permanent, representative governance body for the region that is accountable to the Indigenous community. However, this model has not had any traction towards the successful implementation of an inclusive regional decision-making process to date.

Financial sustainability continually challenges the community’s ability to work towards a cohesive, inclusive community that collectively determines its priorities and how these can be advocated for through a trusted Indigenous decision-making body for the region. The Kaiela Institute’s emergent regional governance model outlines the approach for establishing key elements of the envisioned operating model that considers the aspirations of the Goulburn Murray Indigenous Community.

The operating model has been adapted from details put forward in the Empowered Communities Design Report (Empowered Communities: Empowered People Design Report, 2015), reflecting the evolution of partnerships across the region and increased understanding of the community’s priorities and aspirations since 2015. The interim Algabonyah Community Cabinet, supported by the Kaiela Institute as Secretariat, has envisioned a future regional operating model. The model has not been designed to appease external governments and institutions; rather, it seeks to empower the voice of the Indigenous community in the

219

Goulburn Murray region to ensure all community members can participate in defining and communicating what is important to them.

CHAPTER SUMMARY This chapter has presented a cohesive overview of the Yorta Yorta community, identifying the community’s key strengths and challenges and focusing on the community approach to build on the identified strengths and combat central challenges. The prevalence of distrust and lack of mutuality impacts on the community. Despite this, the community has maintained respectful boundaries to date. By taking a collaborative, region-wide approach to driving Indigenous prosperity and economic inclusion, all organisations, agencies, and sectors will be collectively accountable to the Indigenous community. The basis of self-determination is for the community to achieve priorities and outcomes that support cultural affirmation and integrity, which will enable Indigenous people and families to pursue their aspirations free from discrimination. A significant shift is transforming relationships to redefine how the government engages with the community and also the expectations of the community from government. The new agenda seeks to work towards a capability model that activates the community’s vision for prosperity and self-determination, strengthening the relationship based on the reciprocity of mutual respect.

220

CHAPTER EIGHT – CONCLUSION

OVERVIEW

This final chapter summarises the work of the Kaiela Institute to reposition the value of Indigenous people in the region. The Kaiela Institute believes that by changing the language, investing in capabilities, and reimagining alternative governance models, there is potential for substantial change to the social, cultural, and economic value of Indigenous peoples in the Goulburn Murray region. This thesis presents the challenges and successes of this Nation and what needs to be done in the future to achieve community consensus on what the Indigenous community is putting forward. This community's innovation is a welcome contribution to a policy debate of fundamental importance to Indigenous people. The Kaiela Institute argues the advancement of Indigenous peoples in their community is important for the entire region.

Maintaining the status quo of Indigenous Australia is not sustainable, and the success of the Indigenous community is a success for everyone in the community. Embedded in the thinking of the Goulburn Murray Indigenous community, they believe they have a formula for impacting change. The objective of this community has been to create a platform for social change, a platform where Indigenous people can thrive and succeed. The leaders have thought about how to create long term sustainable change that will contribute to equality, justice, and better opportunities for Indigenous peoples living on Yorta Yorta country.

This thesis describes how the Yorta Yorta have used limited resources and lack of power to preserve and share Indigenous cultural heritage for future generations. They are encouraging all Australians to share in their traditional culture and embrace their unique differences, but most importantly, they are attempting to put a stop to the stereotypical, derogatory defamation of the country’s First Peoples. Although the thesis focuses on one regional Indigenous community in the Goulburn Murray region of Victoria, their challenges resonate with Indigenous communities across Australia. In the Australian context of imposed policies largely resulting from colonisation, the community is refusing to give in to assimilation and forego more than 60 thousand years of indigenous ontology and thereby allow their Indigeneity to disappear into the White, Western constructs of society.

221

This thesis began with a quote from Jack Patten (Patten, 1938). In 1938, Patten, a persuasive public speaker and writer, worked hard to bring attention to the inequalities experienced by Indigenous peoples during a time when they were suffering the most (Horner, 1988). Patten advocated for the rights of Indigenous people within the broader society and worked closely with another highly regarded Wiradjuri leader, William Ferguson. Together, they fought against great opposition to raise awareness of the suffering as a result of government policies (Horner, 1974). It is perplexing that similar challenges remain for some of the most complex issues (Goulburn Murray Empowered Communities Report 2017), particularly in relation to the position of Indigenous peoples within the broader society.

The struggles Patten, Cooper, and Nichols faced have persisted until the present day. Their progress was also affected by fragmentation and division resulting from their own intense deliberations about how to impact social change and who should lead. This thesis argues a collaborative leadership response to institutional racism, assimilation, and segregation brought about by prolific racial and historical stereotyping, social and cultural isolation, and the exploitation and generational devaluing of this Country's First Peoples are required. Everyone, Indigenous and non-Indigenous, must operate with the agreed priority of sustaining Indigenous culture and reaffirming Indigenous identity, and these values must be at the forefront of mainstream policy and strategy, not just Indigenous peoples’.

The Yorta Yorta’s prosperity plan is part of a long history and an incredible story that dates back to the 1800s. The work undertaken in the Goulburn Murray region is not the beginning, and it will not be the end. This thesis captures just a small snippet along the continuum of Indigenous advocacy and incredible leaders this region has produced. They have been working to resist the notion of colonisation, segregation, assimilation and are still fighting against inordinate opposition to maintain a place for Indigenous people's futures, to inspire a sense of hope, motivation, and aspiration for this generation and future generations to continue this work.

Throughout this journey, they have collected a variety of tools, including building resilience because Indigenous people only make up 3% of the population and are reliant on the rest of society to change their perspectives. Indigenous people do not have the power to change the

222

behaviours and beliefs of other people. Patience, because change, particularly social change, occurs slowly over a long period, and also knowing when and where you can influence change are other important tools that have been acquired. Trying to impact social change is an integrative process; there are, unfortunately, no master plans to support social change. It comes down to aligning intrinsic values and personal beliefs so that all these small steps can impact change over a long period of time.

Ultimately, one of the challenges for this community's vision to achieve prosperity is to bridge the distance between wealth and poverty. There are people in the community who are forming a part of the ‘rising middle class’ of Indigenous peoples (Algabonyah Score Card 2017) – those who have jobs and are contributing to the mainstream economy. However, there are still those in the community struggling to achieve the most basic of human rights. The region’s large Indigenous population has been a determining factor in terms of the resources and infrastructure in the community relevant to the density of Indigenous people. It also identifies the diversity of needs that have occurred, which has meant that resources have been needed and required, and whilst it is a reflection on government to be reactive, it is also a telling point in terms of the diversity of needs.

Even though the Indigenous community defines prosperity in terms of health, happiness, and acceptance, economic injustice is unacceptable, and the region cannot continue to overlook the exclusion of Indigenous people from the local economy. Another important component of the Goulburn Murray region’s prosperity plan is identifying how to engage the broader society in building the economy of Indigenous peoples by showing what it means for the rest of society if Indigenous people are accepted and feel a part of the society. Indigenous people are born into a society with limited power to influence and have, to date, managed to adapt to the existing structures where the plan has predominately been to survive. It is still not clear if the ability to adapt to the domination of colonial structures has been a part of the solution or created more problems.

The use of deficit language creates a narrative that has influenced history and (re)created a profile for Indigenous people. The historical narrative is socially constructed; therefore, the future narrative can be socially (re)constructed. Social change starts with a story. The Yorta

223

Yorta story starts more than sixty thousand years ago with a continuing culture of resilient, adaptive peoples. The Yorta Yorta quality of life curve (Figure 4) describes specific moments in time from the arrival of the First Fleet to the establishment of colonies and then the different policies over subsequent years that caused a consistent decline in the quality of life and wellbeing of Indigenous peoples.

The likes of Patten and others in the early human rights movement are inspiring people who have made a significant contribution not only for Yorta Yorta people but also for marginalised people worldwide. There are stories behind each of the men and women over many generations who have been driven and influenced by those who have come before. They have picked up pieces of this fight for righteousness and are a part of the initial efforts to build a platform for social change. This work has not been done in isolation; it is important to acknowledge the history and how all the chapters, just like those in this thesis, relate to one story. Although this is the Yorta Yorta story and is reflective of their place on the banks of the Dungala and Kaiela rivers, their story has resonance for many regional Indigenous communities across Australia. This study has shown that there must be a place to encourage social change and a place to reimagine the social, cultural and economic value of Indigenous peoples. The hope, aspirations and beliefs that exist within the GM community, like those of many communities, cannot be undermined by the dominant society neglecting the place and space for Indigenous peoples, for they are a part of the history of this Country.

KEY RESEARCH FINDINGS This study is an example of one regional community creating social, cultural, and economic opportunities to transform the story and the political landscape of their region by creating change through concrete manifestation and hope that is at the centre of a human rights appeal to everyone playing a part in the acceptance of Indigenous people in their own Country. It follows the Yorta Yorta Nation’s sequential journey to advancing a shared vision and agenda based on human rights and investment rather than deficit approaches to reposition the value of Indigenous people. The objective of this thesis was to engage with leaders contributing to the region’s prosperity plan to identify key barriers and enablers and potential solutions moving forward. This study draws on

224

a case study of the Goulburn Murray region of Victoria, which informs the results, including a series of 20 in-depth interviews. The interviews were conducted with key Indigenous and non-Indigenous leaders who have been investing in change on Yorta Yorta country. It identifies and discusses the Indigenous community’s successes and challenges faced in pursuit of parity. The research demonstrates progress in the advancement of Indigenous people in the Goulburn Murray region has been hampered by the fragmentation and disagreement on many issues within the Indigenous community itself. While not everyone needs to agree on all the issues, it would be useful for the community to have input and an opportunity to contribute to the discussions and have their opinions voiced. For the community to move forward with their regional self- governance proposal, a thorough community consultation needs to be undertaken, and all community members invited to participate. However, this research also revealed that the identified community leaders are all looking to work more collaboratively and are willing to work towards an agreement within the community. Participants recognised that their collective power could improve the current resource allocation. The successful implementation of the community's regional self-governance model would determine how the community strategises on delivering both short term and long term transformation and continues to innovate. Arguably, there is a conflict that largely exists around organisations and stems from a lack of a collective vision and detailed plan, which creates a lack of clarity and consistency in the way services are designed and delivered. This also includes the way opportunities are accessed, and actions are created that align with a long-term vision. Overall, the research found that despite the work of the Kaiela Institute and their progress towards a regional self-governance model, the community as a whole has generally struggled to reach an agreed collective vision and clarity around Indigenous futures. Within the broader political, bureaucratic, or business leadership, there is limited aspirational vision that is aligned with Indigenous leadership.

Implications of Research Findings This study investigated the ability of one regional Indigenous community to address the position of Indigenous peoples. It also engaged with the Indigenous community's prosperity plan and what key leaders have found to be the challenges and successes in the Goulburn Murray region’s approach to repositioning value. The case study provided an overview of the 225

current landscape and addressed the research questions, summarising the attributes the Yorta Yorta have invested in, including the infrastructure, principles and practices that consider the contextual and political factors that have influenced their successes and failures in an attempt to reposition the value of Indigenous peoples living on Country.

Treaty, constitutional reform, and other legislation could be used to achieve genuine self- governance. In addition, Australia should convert the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples into domestic law to enshrine the rights of Australian Indigenous peoples and clearly articulate the obligations of government at all levels, including local government. In the Goulburn Murray region, the Kaiela Institute continues to advocate for the Algabonyah Community Cabinet model of Indigenous regional self-governance as a mechanism to empower Indigenous people to set their own aspirations and priorities. This model centres on a rights-based approach that acknowledges Indigenous people have a right to a quality of life consistent with that of pre-colonisation. The model recognises that to achieve this goal, the entire region must be accountable for investing in Indigenous people's economic growth and prosperity. The consequent positive gains for Indigenous people are cultural affirmation, identity, and socio-economic outcomes that translate into a broad gain for the entire community, both Indigenous and non-Indigenous.

Indigenous communities have been negotiating on policies that are more than 100 years old and are relatively unchanged. For the Goulburn Murray region to achieve social, cultural, and economic benefits, policymakers and the community need to agree on key principles around local Indigenous people's social, cultural, political, and economic rights. There has not been a significant shift in the power relationship between Indigenous and Western or mainstream leadership, particularly with government. Mainstream policies and programs are still about the assimilation of Indigenous practices into Western society. Therefore, the disempowerment and domination of governments are still driven from the point of dispossession.

With its current resources, the community continues to operate from the day-to-day behaviour of interventions and has limited resources to invest in a more strategic approach. Largely, the results of this study indicate an overall consensus that the community could work

226

more effectively if there were a more coordinated and collaborative approach. However, while the community continues to wait for a radical overhaul that will see the demise of the silos and policy attempts that breed conflict and confusion in community, Indigenous people will not be able to contribute to the broader community's wealth. Until the broader community agrees that Indigenous people have an inherent human right to achieve social, economic, and cultural parity with the broader Australian community, any activity to strengthen the community's ability to contribute to the broader economy must be conducted in the context of self-determination. There must be an agreement to support the community's aspiration.

DIRECTIONS OF FUTURE RESEARCH Further research is required to better understand the community-driven approach and its relationship with governments and industries. The impact of government interventions and the forced use of Western governance models have had a significant impact on Indigenous communities. As a result, governance in Indigenous communities is fragmented, and participants often referred to it as siloed. Each organisation tends to look after their own patch as a result of community organisations competing against each other for the same government funding. This has created and contributed to conflict and disharmony among community, family groups, clans, and individuals. These issues are not isolated to the Goulburn Murray region; fragmentation exists in many communities across Australia. Until a solution can be found to fix the division, it will continue to constrain a collaborative, inclusive vision and approach. There needs to be a shift in structural reforms that afford Indigenous peoples’ self-governance and give rise to a culturally safe environment where Indigenous identity, heritage, and culture is valued and recognised by all other Australians. Repositioning the social, cultural and economic value of Indigenous people requires restructuring current governance models in the Indigenous community to address the discourse that tends to be led by White colonial methods of governance and caters to the priorities set by government rather than community. How to reposition the social, cultural and economic value of Indigenous people is complex. It requires an in-depth dismantling of social structures that have been supporting the notion of colonisation and justifying two centuries of unjust treatment of Indigenous peoples.

227

The original plan for this study was to explore two case study sites to offer a comparison. In particular, a second empowered community’s site would have provided a valuable comparison as well as a successful international example where the First Nation’s people are doing considerably well. Unfortunately, time constraints and financial resources were an issue, and this study was revised to make the project achievable within the time frame. It is recommended that this research be undertaken in the future. I recommend this research be extended to include an additional region and potentially an international example in the future.

REFLECTIONS This research began with an implicit aim to positively contribute to the Indigenous community in the region. It was intended to produce evidence of a community-developed approach to addressing the deficit position of Indigenous peoples in the broader society and that the community's intended policy shift could be used as a best practice model across Australia. It is hoped that the research has been able to identify the contextual factors that shape successful outcomes and provide evidence of the community’s attributes and principles that have been developed over many years and will serve as a model for those seeking to improve Indigenous outcomes.

In hindsight, the questions towards the regional self-governance measure specific for the community could have been more direct to the Kaiela Institute's emergent model and participants’ direct thoughts about the model. The research would have been more relevant to the Kaiela Institute if the identified leaders were asked specifically about the Kaiela Institute’s regional self-governance proposal: if they felt that model is a responsible regional decision-making process that, in effect, would create collective accountability and make a difference to positive social, health, wellbeing, and economic outcomes for the Indigenous community in the region.

CHAPTER SUMMARY Successive governments and communities have not been able to find a suitable solution to addressing the disparity between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians. This research provides one regional Indigenous community’s approach to addressing the long-term disadvantage experienced by Indigenous people. The Goulburn Murray community model

228

and their framework that articulates the journey of their community and their attempts to implement a prosperity plan and seeks to reposition the social, cultural and economic value of Indigenous people living on Yorta Yorta country was discussed in detail. The research engages with the successes and challenges the community has encountered and seeks to describe the community’s response and solutions to these. The perception of Indigenous peoples has been influenced by a post-colonial lens that portrays a deficit narrative that has significantly devalued the status of Indigenous people in mainstream society. The deficit narrative runs deep and has become normalised in Australian culture and understanding of Indigenous peoples. The deficit approach has predisposed the position of Indigenous peoples in Australia. This study suggests the imperative is not only to acknowledge but to challenge the central myths about the deficit representations of Indigeneity. The thesis addresses the deficit representations through the knowledge and experience of Indigenous and non-Indigenous leaders working towards a different approach that would reposition the social, cultural and economic value of Indigenous people in their region. Knowledge of potential ways to transform relationships between mainstream and Indigenous populations has clear benefits for decision making and policies in Indigenous space and for future research. This will have significant ramifications for Australia's First People. It provides a community’s approach to addressing social exclusion, discrimination, and the marginalisation of Indigenous peoples, addressing social factors that, in effect, play a critical role in the overall health, wellbeing, and quality of life. From a policy perspective, the Goulburn Murray region provides a framework for government to better engage with and support Indigenous communities in self-determination and potentially lead to more effective government decision-making. The next phase is to cultivate the aspirations and empower Indigenous communities to preserve community autonomy and decision making as close as possible to those who are affected – increasing the social, cultural, economic, and political value of the Indigenous brand within the broader society. This will alleviate the bureaucratic and political minefields that require unsustainable accountability to numerous government departments that continue to force Indigenous communities to operate according to non-Indigenous agendas. This study

229

has determined that these agendas hold little value to the Indigenous perceptions of prosperity or the social, cultural, and economic contribution of Indigenous peoples by the rest of society.

Indigenous people can and should expect a greater level of sophistication of policy and strategy. The Indigenous community should be pushing for greater expectations of collaboration and a holistic view about how to deal with both the transgenerational and current issues, particularly the lack of inclusion and afforded value of Indigenous people from the Western construct of community and society in general. The issue of physical, emotional, social, and spiritual well-being does not belong to a program or to a component of bureaucratic processes or to any one organisation or institution in insolation. There is an urgent need to assess the programmatic environment that consumes and suffocates Indigenous people’s way of life in lieu of an inclusive society that understands and values the rights of Indigenous people to a society including the economies that underpin a sense of past, present and future.

When listening with respect, honour and understanding to the stories of successive Indigenous leaders such as Patten and Cooper or Nicholls through to Briggs, this is their legacy, where they have fought for a more just society for their people. It incorporates Indigenous culture and traditions and a place in society. This thesis captures a small part of their story about their commitment to building a brighter future together with non-Indigenous Australians. From an Indigenous perspective, prosperity means walking in two worlds. Having the ability to walk in two worlds linked to an internal communication that sustains unique culture, practices, and sacred songlines, spiritual beliefs, and the history of Indigenous peoples who are aware of these privileges, but every day are able to step outside and translate that life into the coloniser’s world. If we can take anything from the past, we can see that what might be seen as impossible or incomprehensible is possible, and in a fast-changing and evolving life, there are defining moments to impact change. The continuing existence of Indigenous people and culture in Australia reminds us of the strength and resilience over subsequent generations to survive. Still, it is not enough to merely survive. Future generations have an inherent right

230

to grow in a fair and just world that sustains and celebrates innate cultural differences rather than destroying them. A world where having belief and a passion for preserving culture is not seen as a radical movement or act of rebellion but as a normal state of being.

231

232

REFERENCES

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Population. (2008). 1301.0 - Year Book Australia. . Aboriginal welfare: initial conference of Commonwealth and state Aboriginal authorities (1937, 21st to 23rd April, 1937). Paper presented at the Conference of Commonwealth and State Aboriginal Authorities, Canberra. The Academy of Sport Health and Education (2019). Retrieved from https://ashe.unimelb.edu.au/ AHRC. (2017). Stopping racism is everyone's responsibility. Retrieved from https://humanrights.gov.au/about/news/opinions/stopping-racism-everyones-responsibility Aileen, M.-R. (2015). 1. I Still Call Australia Home: Indigenous Belonging and Place in a Postcolonizing Society: University of Minnesota Press. Alberici, E. (2015, 30 Mar 2015). Interview: Noel Pearson from Empowered Communities. Retrieved from https://www.abc.net.au/lateline/interview-noel-pearson-from-empoweredcommunities/6360526 Alford, K. (2002). Shepparton Regional Indigenous Community Employment and Development Strategies. Melbourne University Private Ltd, Melbourne. Algabonyah Score Card (2017). Unpublished Community Report Kaiela Institute. ALRC. (2010). Changing Policies Towards Aboriginal People. Retrieved from Australian Government: https://www.alrc.gov.au/publication/recognition-of-aboriginal-customary-laws-alrc-report- 31/3-aboriginal-societies-the-experience-of-contact/changing-policies-towards-aboriginal- people/ Altman, J. C. (2013). Arguing the intervention / Prof Jon Altman. In. Anderson, I. (2001). Aboriginal Health Policy and Modeling in Social Epidemiology’. Anderson, I. (2003). Black bit, white bit. In M. Grossman (Ed.), Blacklines: contemporary critical writing by Indigenous Australians (pp. p. 43-51). Carlton Vic: Melbourne University Press,2003 p.43-51. Anderson, I. (2004). A health development agenda for Indigenous Australians. Anderson, I., Baum, F., & Bentley, M. (2007, July 2004). Beyond bandaids: exploring the underlying social determinants of Aboriginal health. Paper presented at the Social Determinants of Health Workshop, Adelaide. Anderson, I., & Sanders, W. (1996). Aboriginal health and institutional reform within Australian federalism / I. Anderson and W. Sanders. In. Anfara, V. A., & Mertz, N. T. (2006). Theoretical frameworks in qualitative research. [electronic resource]: SAGE. Aronson, J. (1995). A Pragmatic View of Thematic Analysis. Atkinson, J. (2002). Trauma trails, recreating song lines. [electronic resource] : the transgenerational effects of trauma in indigenous Australia: Spinifex Press. Atkinson, W. (2001). 'Not one iota' of land justice: reflections on the Yorta Yorta native title claim 1994-2001. Indigenous Law Bulletin, 5(6), 19-23. Atkinson, W. (2011). Media Representations & Indigenous Voices in the Barmah-Millewa Campaign. Research Paper on Barmah-Millewa Campaign.

Media Representations & Indigenous Voices Local media in ...https://waynera.files.wordpress.com Atkinson, W. (2013). Oncountry Learning Site:Yorta Yorta Forest-Wetlands Retrieved from https://waynera.wordpress.com/writings-and-publications/ Atkinson, W. R. (2010). NGARIARTY: SPEAKING STRONG. The schools of human experience. In First Australians (2nd ed., pp. p. 285-329 ). Carlton Vic The Miegunyah Press. Melbourne University Publishng Limited. 233

Attwood, B. (1989). The making of the Aborigines: Allen & Unwin. Attwood, B. (2003). Rights for Aborigines: Allen & Unwin. Attwood, B., & Markus, A. (1998). (The) 1967 (referendum) and all that: Narrative and myth, aborigines and Australia[*]. Australian Historical Studies, 29(111), 267. doi:10.1080/10314619808596073 Attwood, B., & Markus, A. (2004). Thinking Black. [electronic resource] : William Cooper and the Australian Aborigines' League: Aboriginal Studies Press. Attwood, B., & Markus, A. (2007). Part II. Aboriginal Oral Sources. In (pp. 158-166). Canberra, A.C.T.: Aboriginal Studies Press. Australia, F. C. o. (1998). Members of the Yorta Yorta Aboriginal Community v The State of Victoria and Ors. Bajada, C., & Trayler, R. (2014). A fresh approach to Indigenous Business Education. Education + Training, 56(7). doi:10.1108/ET-07-2014-0079 Barnett-Page, E., & Thomas, J. (2009). Methods for the synthesis of qualitative research: a critical review. BMC medical research methodology, 9, 59. doi:10.1186/1471-2288-9-59 Bauman, T., Smith, D., Quiggin, R., Keller, C., & Drieberg, L. (2015). Building Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander governance : report of a survey and forum to map current and future research and practical resource needs / Toni Bauman, Diane Smith, Robynne Quiggin, Christiane Keller, Lara Drieberg. In. Behrendt, L. (2001). Indigenous Self-Determination: Rethinking the Relationship between Rights and Economic Development. University of New South Wales Law Journal, 24(3), 850-861. Behrendt, L. (2002). Power from the People: A Community-Based Approach to Indigenous Self- Determination. Flinders Journal of Law Reform, 6(2), 135-150. Behrendt, L. (2012). Power from the People: A Community-Based Approach to Indigenous Self- Determination. Flinders Journal of Law Reform, 6(2), 135-150. Behrendt, L. (2013). Self-representation, self-determination and sovereignty. Hot Topics: Legal Issues in Plain Language(86), 20-21. Behrendt, L., Porter, A., & Vivian, A. (2010). Indigenous self-determination within the justice context: Literature review. University of Technology Sydney. Bennett, S. (1985). The 1967 referendum. Australian Aboriginal Studies, 2, 26-31. Bond, C. (2017). Class is the new black: The dangers of an obsession with the 'Aboriginal middle class. ABC. Retrieved from ABC News Opinion website: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2017- 06-28/opinion-class-is-the-new-black-chelsea-bond/8655544 Bonilla-Silva, E. (2012). The invisible weight of whiteness: the racial grammar of everyday life in contemporary America. Ethnic & Racial Studies, 35(2), 173-194. doi:10.1080/01419870.2011.613997 Bourke, L., & Geldens, P. M. (2007). Perceptions of Reconciliation and Related Indigenous Issues among Young Residents of Shepparton. Australian Journal of Social Issues, The, 42(4), 603- 621. Bourke, L., Malatzky, C., Terry, D., Nixon, R., Ferguson, K., & Ferguson, P. (2017). Perspectives of Aboriginal issues among non-Aboriginal residents of rural Victorian communities. Australian Journal of Social Issues, The, 52(3), 78-93. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology, 77. Brigg, M., & Curth-Bibb, J. (2017). Recalibrating intercultural governance in Australian Indigenous organisations: the case of Aboriginal community controlled health. Australian Journal of Political Science, 52(2), 199-217. doi:10.1080/10361146.2017.1281379 Briggs, P. (2012, May 2012). Yarrwul Nyuwandan Place Based Agreement: Social Inclusion and Cultural Respect (Competency) Framework. Retrieved from https://www.kaielainstitute.org.au/yarrwul-nyuwandan-social-inclusion.html 234

Briggs, P. (2014) Rumbalara, football and a life of leadership/Interviewer: N. Fogarty. ABC Local, Shepparton, ABC Local. Briggs, P. (2018a). Ceremonial address given at Official Unveiling of the William Cooper Memorial Statue, Shepparton Victoria. Briggs, P. (2018b, 28th June 2018). Victorian Government's Social Procurement Framework Panel Discussion. Paper presented at the Indigenous Employment, The Connection Briggs, P., & Nixon, R. (2018). Case Study: Developinga Data Unit & Community Driven Key Indicator Report for the Goulburn-Murray Region of Victoria. Paper presented at the Closing the Gap Technical Workshop Presentation, Canberra, ACT. Bringing them home: learning about the separation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children from their families. (2005). (Updated version. ed.): Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission. Broome, R. (2001). Aboriginal Australians : black responses to white dominance, 1788-2001 (3rd ed. ed.): Allen & Unwin. Broome, R. (2005). Aboriginal Victorians : a history since 1800: Allen & Unwin. Broome, R., & Broome, R. (2010). Aboriginal Australians : a history since 1788 (Fully rev. 4th ed. ed.): Allen & Unwin. Burton, L. J., Westen, D., & Kowalski, R. M. (2009). Psychology 2nd Edition (Second Australian and New Zealand edition. ed.): John Wiley and Sons Australia, Ltd. Calma, T. (2006). Human Rights and Indigenous Education. Paper presented at the Making the Difference Conference

Indigenous students in education – Success and Celebration, Adelaide. Speech retrieved from https://humanrights.gov.au/about/news/speeches/human-rights-and-indigenous- education-tom-calma-2006 Carter, S. M., & Little, M. (2007). Justifying knowledge, justifying method, taking action: epistemologies, methodologies, and methods in qualitative research. Qualitative health research, 17(10), 1316-1328. Cato, N. (1976). Mister Maloga : Daniel Matthews and his mission, Murray River, 1864-1902: University of Queensland Press. Cato, N. (1993). Mister Maloga (Rev. ed. ed.): University of Queensland Press. Changing Policies Towards Aboriginal People. (2010). Recognition Of Aboriginal Customary Laws (ALRC Report 31). Retrieved from https://www.alrc.gov.au/publication/recognition-of- aboriginal-customary-laws-alrc-report-31/3-aboriginal-societies-the-experience-of- contact/changing-policies-towards-aboriginal-people/ Closing the Gap: Prime Minister's Report. (2018). Retrieved from https://www.pmc.gov.au/sites/default/files/reports/closing-the-gap- 2018/sites/default/files/ctg-report-20183872.pdf?a=1 Couzens, V. (2020). Possum skin cloaks then and now – same same but different. Retrieved from https://australian.museum/learn/first-nations/possum-skin-cloaks-then-and- now/#:~:text=Possum%20Skin%20Cloaks%20tell%20our,have%20been%20significant%20an d%20profound. Davis, F. L. (2010). Colouring within the lines : settler colonalialism and the Cummeragunja Aboriginal Station, 1888-1960s. De Hoog, J., Sherwood, J., & Martin, R. (1979). Working with aborigines in remote areas: Mount Lawley College. de Varennes, F., & Kuzborska, E. (2016). Language, Rights and Opportunities: The Role of Language in the Inclusion and Exclusion of Indigenous Peoples. International Journal on Minority and Group Rights, 23(3), 281-305. 235

Dick, D. (2007). Indigenous peoples in Australia – a human rights based approach. Paper presented at the International Symposium on the Social Determinants of Indigenous Health, Adelaide. Dodson, M. (1994). The wentworth lecture the end in the beginning: Re(de)finding aboriginality. Australian Aboriginal Studies(1), 2-13. Dodson, M. (1996). Assimilation Verse Self-determination. In. Dodson, M. (2003). Governance for sustainable development : strategic issues and principles for Indigenous Australian communities / M. Dodson and D.E. Smith. In. Dodson, M. (2008). Foreword. In J. Hunt, D. Smith, S. Garling, & W. Sanders (Eds.), Contested Governance (Vol. 29, pp. xvii-xx): ANU Press. Dodson, M., & Smith, D. (2003). Governance for sustainable development : strategic issues and principles for Indigenous Australian communities / M. Dodson and D.E. Smith. In. Dudgeon, P., Kelly, K., & Walker, R. (2010). Closing the Gaps in and through Indigenous Health Research: Guidelines, Processes and Practices. Australian Aboriginal Studies(2), 81-91. Dudgeon, P., Mallard, J., Oxenham, D., & Fielder, J. (2002). Contemporary Aboriginal perceptions of community. In A. Fisher, C. Sonn & B. Bishop (Eds.). Psychological sense of community: Research, applications, and implications (pp. 247–67). New York: Plenum Publishers. . Duffy, A. (2006). Indigenous Leadership. International Journal of Learning, 13(7), 71-78. doi:10.18848/1447-9494/CGP/v13i07/44612 Dunn, K., Forrest, J., Burnley, I., & McDonald, A. (2004). Constructing racism in Australia. Australian Journal of Social Issues, 39(4). Eckermann, A.-K. (2010). Binan goonj : bridging cultures in Aboriginal health (3rd ed. ed.): Churchill Livingstone/Elsevier. Economics, D. A. (2018). Closing the Indigenous Gap in the Goulburn Murray Region Retrieved from Unpublished Community Report Eisenhardt, K. M. (1991). BETTER STORIES AND BETTER CONSTRUCTS: THE CASE FOR RIGOR AND COMPARATIVE LOGIC. Academy of Management Review, 16(3), 620-627. doi:10.5465/AMR.1991.4279496 Empowered Communities. (2018). Empowered Communities is led by Indigenous people, for Indigenous people in ten regions across Australia. Retrieved from https://empoweredcommunities.org.au/ Empowered Communities: Empowered People Design Report. (2015). Unpublished Community Report. Etherington, S. (2007). Coming ready or not! : Aborigines are heading for town / Steve Etherington. In. Fagan, T. (1984). The Aboriginal Medical Service : a community controlled primary and preventive health care delivery service. In. Final Report of the Referendum Council. (2017). Retrieved from https://www.referendumcouncil.org.au/sites/default/files/report_attachments/Referendum _Council_Final_Report.pdf Fletcher, C. (1994). Aboriginal self-determination in Australia: Aboriginal Studies Press. Foley, D. (2003). Indigenous Epistemology and Indigenous Standpoint Theory. Social Alternatives, 22(1), 44-52. Foley, G. (1982). Aboriginal community controlled health services - a short history. In. Gale, P. (2006). Decades of neglect: remote Indigenous communities and the myths about money. In. Ganbina: Agents for Change (2019). Retrieved from http://www.ganbina.com.au/?page_id=385 Germov, J., & McGee, T. R. (2005). Histories of Australian sociology. [electronic resource]: Melbourne University Press.

236

Germov, J., & Poole, M. (2007). Public sociology: an introduction to Australian society: Allen & Unwin. Germov, J., & Poole, M. (2014). Second opinion: an introduction to health sociology (Fifth edition. ed.): Oxford University Press. Gibbs, G., & Flick, U. (2007). Analyzing qualitative data: Sage Publications. Goulburn Murray Empowered Communities Report (2017). Kaeila Institute Retrieved from https://empoweredcommunities.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/EC-Baseline-Report- Goulburn-Murray-Final.pdf Gould, K. (2017). Research into Research and Policy that Affects the Lives of Aboriginal People Kaiela Institute internal unpublished research Kaiela Institute. Grant, S. (2016). New Indigenous Middle Class Finds Place in Modern Economy. In Pursuit, The University of Melbourne. Grant, S. (2020). Indigenous Australians must tell the truth, so don't ask us for fairytales, Opinion piece Sydney Morning Herald. Retrieved from https://www.smh.com.au/national/indigenous-australians-must-tell-the-truth-so-don-t-ask- us-for-fairytales-20200221-p5431q.html Greene, M. J. (2014). On the Inside Looking In: Methodological Insights and Challenges in Conducting Qualitative Insider Research. Qualitative Report, 19(29), 1-13. Guillemin, M., & Gillam, L. (2004). Ethics, reflexivity, and "Ethically important moments" in research. In (Vol. 10, pp. 261-280). Guillemin, M., Gillam, L., Barnard, E., Stewart, P., Walker, H., & Rosenthal, D. (2016). "We're checking them out": Indigenous and non-Indigenous research participants' accounts of deciding to be involved in research. International Journal for Equity in Health, 15, 1-10. doi:10.1186/s12939-016-0301-4 Gustafsson, J. (2017). Single case studies vs. multiple case studies: A comparative study. In. Habtegiorgis, A. E., Paradies, Y. C., & Dunn, K. M. (2014). Are racist attitudes related to experiences of racial discrimination? Within sample testing utilising nationally representative survey data. Social science research, 47, 178-191. doi:10.1016/j.ssresearch.2014.05.002 Haggis, J. (2004). Thoughts on a Politics of Whiteness in a (Never Quite Post) Colonial Country: Abolitionism, Essentialism and Incommensurability. In (pp. 48-58). Canberra: Aboriginal Studies Press. Hartwig, M. (1973). Racism: the Australian Experience. Black versus white, 2(In: Stevens F, ed. ). Harvey, J. (2007). Whiteness and morality: pursuing racial justice through reparations and sovereignty: Palgrave Macmillan. Harvey, K. (2003). Aboriginal elders' voices: stories of the "Tide of history": Victorian indigenous elders' life stories & oral histories: Aboriginal Community Elders Service. Hattam, R., Rigney, R., & Hemming, S. (2007). Reconciliation? Culture and nature and the Murray River

In A. M. E. Potter, S. McKenzie, and & J. McKay (Eds.), In Fresh water: New perspectives on water in Australia (pp. 105-122). Carlton: Melbourne University Press. Hemming, S., & Rigney, D. (2008). Unsettling sustainability: Ngarrindjeri political literacies, strategies of engagement and transformation. Continuum: Journal of Media & Cultural Studies, 22(6), 757-775. doi:10.1080/10304310802452438 Hemming, S., & Rigney, D. (2008). Unsettling sustainability: Ngarrindjeri political literacies, strategies of engagement and transformation. Continuum: Journal of Media & Cultural Studies, 22(6). Hill, P. S., Wakerman, J., Matthews, S., & Gibson, O. (2001). Tactics at the interface: Australian Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander health managers. Social Science & Medicine, 52(3), 467- 480. doi:10.1016/S0277-9536(00)00196-9 237

History of The Flats. (2011). Hocking, C., & Whiteford, G. (1995). Multiculturalism in occupational therapy: A time for reflection on core values, 172. Hoffmann, B. D., Roeger, S., Wise, P., Dermer, J., Yunupingu, B., Lacey, D., . . . Panton, B. (2012). Achieving highly successful multiple agency collaborations in a cross-cultural environment: experiences and lessons from Dhimurru Aboriginal Corporation and partners, 42. Hollinsworth, D. (1996). Community development in indigenous Australia: self-determination or indirect rule? Community Development Journal, 31(2), 114. Horner, J. C. (1974). Vote Ferguson for Aboriginal freedom : a biography: Australia and New Zealand Book Co. Horner, J. C. (1988). Patten, John Thomas (Jack) (1905–1957). Australian Dictionary of Biography, National Centre of Biography. Howitt, R. (2012). Sustainable indigenous futures in remote Indigenous areas: relationships, processes and failed state approaches. GeoJournal, 77(6), 817. Huggins, J. (1998). Sister girl : the writings of Aboriginal activist and historian Jackie Huggins: University of Queensland Press. Human Research Ethics Committees. (2018). Retrieved from https://www.nhmrc.gov.au/research- policy/ethics/human-research-ethics-committees Hunt, J. (2005). Capacity development in the international development context : implications for Indigenous Australia / J. Hunt. In. Hunt, J. (2006). Building Indigenous community governance in Australia [electronic resource] : preliminary research findings / J. Hunt and D. E. Smith. In. Hunt, J. (2007). The Whole-of-government Experiment in Indigenous Affairs: A Question of Governance Capacity. Public Policy, 2(2), 155-174. Hunt, J., Smith, D., Garling, S., & Sanders, W. (2008). Contested governance: culture, power and institutions in indigenous Australia: ANU E Press. Indigenous Governance Toolkit. (2020). Retrieved from https://www.aigi.com.au/ Johnston, J., & Zawawi, C. (2009). Public relations: theory and practice (3rd ed. ed.): Allen & Unwin. Julien, M., Wright, B., & Zinni, D. M. (2010). Stories from the circle: Leadership lessons learned from aboriginal leaders. The Leadership Quarterly, 21(1), 114-126. doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2009.10.009 Kaiela Institute Independent Centre for Leadership and Innovation (2018). Retrieved from https://www.kaielainstitute.org.au/ Kairuz, C., A. , Casanelia, L., M. , Bennett-Brook, K., Coombes, J., & Yadav, U. N. (2020). Impact of racism and discrimination on the physical and mental health among Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples living in Australia: a protocol for a scoping review. Systematic Reviews, 9(1), 1-6. doi:10.1186/s13643-020-01480-w Katsonis, M. (2019, 15th February 2019). Indigenous Leaders Navigate Two Worlds. Retrieved from https://www.themandarin.com.au/104049-indigenous-leadership/ Kelly, M. (2011). Life is Health is Life: Taking Action to Close the Gap. Victorian Aboriginal evidence- based health promotion resource. . Vic Health Promotion Foundation (Vic Health) for the Victorian Government Department of Health. Kelsall, R. K., Kelsall, H. M., & Chisholm, L. (1984). Stratification : an essay on class and inequality (2nd ed. ed.): Longman. Klein, E. (2015). Empowered indigenous communities. Arena Magazine (Fitzroy, Vic)(136), 33-35. Klein, H. K., & Myers, M. D. (1999). A Set of Principles for Conducting and Evaluating Interpretive Field Studies in Information Systems. MIS Quarterly, 23(1), 67-93. doi:10.2307/249410 Kowal, E. (2011). THE STIGMA OF WHITE PRIVILEGE. Cultural Studies, 25(3), 313-333. doi:10.1080/09502386.2010.491159 238

Kumar, R. (2019). Research methodology: A step-by-step guide for beginners (5th. ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Langton, M. (1993). "Well, I heard it on the radio and I saw it on the television" : an essay for the Australian Film Commission on the politics and aesthetics of filmmaking by and about Aboriginal people and things: Australian Film Commission. Langton, M. (2010). The dawn is at hand / Marcia Langton and Noel Loos. In First Australians (pp. 333-378). Carlton Vic: The Miegunyah Press. Langton, M. (2013). The quiet revolution : indigenous people and the resources boom: ABC Books. Langton, M. (2019, Tue 9 Jul 2019, 6:15pm). Australia’s moral legitimacy depends on recognising Indigenous sovereignty. ABC Religion and Ethics Retrieved from https://www.abc.net.au/religion/marcia-langton-australia-moral-legitimacy-and-indigenous- sovere/11287908#:~:text=One%20of%20the%20most%20important,that%20is%20sometim es%20called%20sovereignty. Lewis, P. (2011). Rights as the framework for responsible relationships between Australia 'invader- society' and aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. Ethos, 19(4), 6-10. Liamputtong, P. (2012). Chapter 1: Methodological frameworks and sampling in qualittive research (4th ed.). Melbourne: Oxford University Press. . Liamputtong, P., & Ezzy, D. (2005). Qualitative research methods (2nd ed. ed.): Oxford University Press. Limerick, M. (2009). What Makes an Aboriginal Council Successful? Case Studies of Aboriginal Community Government Performance in Far North Queensland. 68, 414-428. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8500.2009.00648.x Limerick, M., & Yeatman, L. (2008). Lessons from an Aboriginal partnership in Australia. In (pp. 80- 99). Lippmann, L. (1981). Generations of resistance : the Aboriginal struggle for justice: Longman Cheshire. Lippmann, L. (1991). Generations of resistance : Aborigines demand justice (2nd ed. ed.): Longman Cheshire. Lippmann, L. (1999). Generations of resistance, Mabo and justice. Lulla's Children and Family Centre. (2016). Retrieved from https://www.lullascentre.com/blank Lynch, A., H, Griggs, D., Joachim, L., & Walker, J. (2013). The role of the Yorta Yorta people in clarifying the common interest in sustainable management of the Murray-Darling Basin, Australia. Policy Sciences, 46(2), 109. doi:10.1007/s11077-012-9164-8 Maddison, S. (2009). Australia: Indigenous Autonomy Matters. Development, 52(4), 483-489. doi:https://link.springer.com/journal/volumesAndIssues/41301 Makuwira, J. (2007). The Politics of Community Capacity-building: Contestations, Contradictions, Tensions and Ambivalences in the Discourse in Indigenous Communities in Australia. Australian Journal of Indigenous Education, The, 36(Supplementary), 129-136. Markus, A. (1983). William Cooper and the 1937 Petition to the King. Aboriginal History, 7, 46-60. Markus, A. (1994). Australian race relations, 1788-1993: Allen & Unwin. Martin, D. F. (2003). Rethinking the design of Indigenous organisations : the need for strategic engagement / D.F. Martin. In. McCann-Mortimer, P., Augoustinos, M., & LeCouteur, A. (2004). 'Race' and the Human Genome Project: Constructions of Scientific Legitimacy. Discourse & Society: An International Journal for the Study of Discourse and Communication in Their Social, Political and Cultural Contexts, 15(4), 409-432. doi:10.1177/0957926504043707 McConnochie, K. R., Hollinsworth, D., & Pettman, J. J. (1988). Race & racism in Australia: Social Science Press.

239

Mellor, D. (2003). Contemporary racism in australia: the experiences of Aborigines. Personality & social psychology bulletin, 29(4), 474-486. Merlan, F. (1998). Caging the rainbow : places, politics, and aborigines in a North Australian town: University of Hawaìi Press. Moore, T. (2014). Aboriginal Agency and Marginalisation in Australian Society. Social Inclusion, 2(3), 124-135. doi:10.17645/si.v2i3.38 Moran, M. P., D and Curth-Bibb, J. . (2014). Funding Indigenous organisations

Improving governance performance through innovations in public finance management in remote Australia. Retrieved from https://aifs.gov.au/publications/archived/4694 Moreton-Robinson, A. (2000). Talkin' up to the white woman : Aboriginal women and feminism: University of Queensland Press. Moreton-Robinson, A. (2005). Patriarchal Whiteness, Self-determination and Indigenous Women: The Invisibility of Structural Privilege and the Visibility of Oppression. In (pp. 61-73). Canberra: Aboriginal Studies Press. Moreton-Robinson, A. (2008). Editorial / Aileen Moreton-Robinson and Maggie Walter. In. Moreton-Robinson, A. (2013). Towards an Australian Indigenous Women's Standpoint Theory. Australian Feminist Studies, 28(78), 331-347. doi:10.1080/08164649.2013.876664 Morgan, R. (1952). Reminiscences of the Aboriginal station at Cumeragunga and its aboriginal people: A group of friends of the author. Morley, S. (2015). What works in effective Indigenous community-managed programs and organisations / Sam Morley. In. Morphy, F., & Sanders, W. (2004). The indigenous welfare economy and the CDEP scheme: ANU E Press. Morris, S. (2018, 19 July 2018 ). THE ULURU STATEMENT FROM THE HEART: WHY I HAVE HOPE. Retrieved from https://pursuit.unimelb.edu.au/articles/the-uluru-statement-from-the- heart-why-i-have-hope Muecke, S. S., A (2010). Aboriginal Australians: first nations of an ancient continent. London: Thames and Hudson. Myers, M. D., & Klein, H. K. (2011). A SET OF PRINCIPLES FOR CONDUCTING CRITICAL RESEARCH IN INFORMATION SYSTEMS. In (Vol. 35, pp. 17-36): MIS Quarterly. NACCHO History: Introduction – The need for NACCHO. (2020). Retrieved from https://www.naccho.org.au/ Nakata, M. N. (1998). But what does it mean? Ngoonjook(15), 19-28. Nelson, G. E., & Nelson, R. (2014). Dharmalan Dana : an Australian Aboriginal man's 73-Year search for the story of his Aboriginal and Indian ancestors: ANU E Press. Nelson, R. (2014). Yarrwul Nyuwandan Project. ADULT CULTURAL COMPETENCY

CURRICULUM FRAMEWORK. Retrieved from NHMRC. (2003). Values and ethics: Guidelines for ethical conduct in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander health research. National Health Medical Research Council: The Council. NHMRC. (2018a). Ethical conduct in research with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples and communities: Guidelines for researchers and stakeholders. Commonwealth of Australia: Canberra: National Health and Medical Research Council. NHMRC. (2018b). he Australian Code for the Responsible Conduct of Research. Retrieved from https://www.nhmrc.gov.au/about-us/publications/australian-code-responsible-conduct- research-2018 Nilan, P., Julian, R., & Germov, J. (2007). Australian youth : social and cultural issues: Pearson Education Australia.

240

Nixon, R. (2019). [Meeting with Executive Director of Kaiela Institute and the Victorian Minister of Aboriginal Affairs ]. Our Progress Measuring Towards Prosperity For Aboriginal People In The Goulburn Murray Region. (2018). Kaiela Institute. Our Region. Traditional Owners Yorta Yorta Nation. (2018). Retrieved from https://www.gbcma.vic.gov.au/our-region/traditionalowners/yortayorta Overcoming Indigenous disadvantage: key indicators (2009). Retrieved from Canberra: https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&AuthType=sso&db=edsaed&AN=rmit plus175970&site=eds-live&scope=site&custid=s2775460 Paradies, Y. (2005). Anti-Racism and Indigenous Australians. Analyses of Social Issues & Public Policy, 5(1), 1-28. doi:10.1111/j.1530-2415.2005.00053.x Paradies, Y. (2006). A systematic review of empirical research on self-reported racism and health, 888. Paradies, Y., & Cunningham, J. (2009). Experiences of racism among urban Indigenous Australians: findings from the DRUID study. Ethnic & Racial Studies, 32(3), 548-573. doi:10.1080/01419870802065234 Paradies, Y., Harris, R., & Anderson, I. (2008). The impact of racism on Indigenous health in Australia and Aotearoa : towards a research agenda: Cooperative Research Centre for Aboriginal Health. Pascoe, B. (2007). Convincing ground. [electronic resource] : learning to fall in love with your country: Aboriginal Studies Press. Pascoe, B. (2014). Dark Emu : Black seeds agriculture or accident? : Magabala Books. Patten, J. (1938). The Australian Abo Call. (2). Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research & evaluation methods (3rd ed. ed.): Sage Publications. Pearson, N. (2000a). Our right to take responsibility: Noel Pearson and Associates. Pearson, N. (2000b). Passive welfare and the destruction of indigenous society in Australia. In (pp. 136-155). Pearson, N. (2002). Passive Welfare and Social Enterprise. Bama Indigenous Stock Exchange. Pearson, N. (2014). Defining Goulburn Murray Paper presented at the Dungala Kaiela Oration, Rumbalara Football Netball Club Shepparton Victoria Pedersen, A., Beven, J., Walker, I., & Griffiths, B. (2004). Attitudes toward Indigenous Australians: the role of empathy and guilt. Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology, 14(4), 233- 249. doi:10.1002/casp.771 Pedersen, A., Dudgeon, P., Watt, S., & Griffiths, B. (2006). Attitudes toward indigenous Australians: The issue of “special treatment”. Australian Psychologist, 41(2), 85-94. doi:10.1080/00050060600585502 Pedersen, A., Paradies, Y., & Barndon, A. (2015). The consequences of intergroup ideologies and prejudice control for discrimination and harmony. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 45(12), 684-696. doi:10.1111/jasp.12330 Perea, J. (1997). The Black/White Binary Paradigm of Race: The "Normal Science" of American Racial Thought. California Law Review, 85(5), 1213. doi:10.2307/3481059 Peredo, A. M., Anderson, R. B., Galbraith, C. S., Honig, B., & Dana, L. P. (2004). Towards a theory of indigenous entrepreneurship. International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Small Business, 1(1-2), 1-20. doi:10.1504/IJESB.2004.005374 Perkins, R., Langton, M., & Atkinson, W. D. (2010). First Australians : an illustrated history: Miegunyah Press. Peters-Little, F. (2001). The community game: Aboriginal self definition at the local level / Frances Peters-Little. In.

241

Pitty, R. (1999). A poverty of evidence: abusing law and history in Yorta Yorta v Victoria (1998). Australian Journal of Legal History, 5(1), 41-61. Poelina, A. (2020). A Coalition of Hope! A Regional Governance Approach to Indigenous Australian Cultural Wellbeing. In A. Campbell, M. Duffy, & B. Edmondson (Eds.), Located Research: Regional places, transitions and challenges (pp. 153-180). Singapore: Springer Singapore. Price, K., & Price, K. (2015). Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander education : an introduction for the teaching profession (Second edition. ed.): Cambridge University Press. Proud Strong Family. How we built Rumba. (2010). Shepparton Victoria Rumbalara Football Netball Club RAC. (2017). Our History. Retrieved from https://www.rumbalara.org.au/our-history Reilly, R. E. (2011). A pilot study of Aboriginal health promotion from an ecological perspective. In: BioMed Central. Reynolds, H. (1972). Aborigines and settlers : the Australian experience, 1788-1939: Cassell Australia. Reynolds, H. (1987). Frontier : Aborigines, settlers and land: Allen & Unwin. Reynolds, H. (1989). Dispossession : Black Australians and white invaders: Allen & Unwin. Reynolds, H. (1999). Why weren't we told? : a personal search for the truth about our history: Penguin. Reynolds, H. (2003). The law of the land (3rd ed. ed.): Penguin. Rigney, L.-I. (1999a). The first perspective: Culturally safe research practices on or with Indigenous peoples. Paper presented at the Chacmool Conference Proceedings, Alberta, Canada Rigney, L.-I. (1999b). Internationalization of an Indigenous Anticolonial Cultural Critique of Research Methodologies: A Guide to Indigenist Research Methodology and Its Principles. Wicazo Sa Review, 14(2), 109-121. doi:10.2307/1409555 Rigney, L.-I. (2001). A first perspective of Indigenous Australian participation in science : framing Indigenous research towards Indigenous Australian intellectual sovereignty. Kaurna Higher Education Journal(7). Rigney, L.-I. (2006). Indigenist Research and Aboriginal Australia. In J. E. K. a. N. I. Goduka (Ed.), Indigenous Peoples' Wisdom and Power: Taylor Francis. Ritter, D. (2004). The judgement of the world - The Yorta Yorta Case(1) and the 'Tide of history'. In (Vol. 35, pp. 106-121). Robbins, J. (2015). Policy approaches to addressing Aboriginal social inclusion in South Australia. Australian Journal of Social Issues, The, 50(2), 171-189. Robinson, A., Moreton-Robinson, A., & Walter, M. (2011). Final Report : Leadership in Indigenous Research Capacity Building : Implementing and Embedding an Indigenous Research Methodologies Masterclass Module. Sydney: Australian Learning and Teaching Council (ALTC). Rogers, P. H. (1973). The industrialists and the Aborigines : a study of Aboriginal employment in the Australian mining industry: Angus & Robertson. Rowley, C. D. (1972a). The destruction of Aboriginal society: Penguin Books Australia. Rowley, C. D. (1972b). Outcasts in white Australia: Penguin Books Australia. Rowley, C. D. (1978). A matter of justice: Australian National University Press. Ryan, G. W., & Bernard, H. R. (2003). Techniques to Identify Themes, 85. Ryan, W. (1976). Blaming the victim (Rev., updated ed. ed.): Vintage Books. Sanders, W. (2002). Towards an Indigenous order of Australian government: rethinking self- determination as Indigenous affairs policy / W. Sanders. In. Sanders, W. (2004). Thinking about Indigenous Community Governance. Centre for Aboriginal Economic Policy Research, 262/2004, .

242

Sanders, W. (2008). Being a Good Senior Manager in Indigenous Community Governance: Working with Public Purpose and Private Benefit. Australian Journal of Public Administration, 67(2), 173-185. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8500.2008.00580.x Sarra, C. (2015). Delivering Beyond Indigenous Policy Rhetoric' Lecture: full text and key quotes Shepparton Law Courts Project. (2019). Retrieved from https://www.courts.vic.gov.au/projects/shepparton-law-courts-project Silver, H. (2010). Understanding social inclusion and its meaning for Australia. Australian Journal of Social Issues, 45(2). Smith, D. (2005). Researching Indigenous Governance: A methodological and conceptual framework Centre for Aboriginal Economic Policy Research, No. 29/2005. Smith, L. R. (1980). The Aboriginal population of Australia: Australian National University Press for the Academy of the Social Sciences in Australia. Social Justice Report (2005). Retrieved from https://humanrights.gov.au/our-work/aboriginal-and- torres-strait-islander-social-justice/publications/social-justice-report-5 Social Justice Report. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Justice Commissioner. (2009). Retrieved from Australian Human Rights Commission: https://humanrights.gov.au/our- work/aboriginal-and-torres-strait-islander-social-justice/publications/social-justice-report-1 Social Justice Report: Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Justice Commissioner (2012). Retrieved from Sydney NSW: https://humanrights.gov.au/our-work/aboriginal-and-torres- strait-islander-social-justice/publications/social-justice-report-11 The Social Value of an Aboriginal Run Sporting Club. (2017). Retrieved from Centre for Sport and Social Impact: https://www.latrobe.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0009/742527/Latrobe_Rumbalara- FNC_Summary_20160406.pdf Spindler, S. (1994). Justice, power and participation. Community Quarterly 30:4-10. Stewart, J., & Warn, J. (2017). Between Two Worlds: Indigenous Leaders Exercising Influence and Working across Boundaries. Australian Journal of Public Administration, 76(1), 3-17. doi:10.1111/1467-8500.12218 Strelein, L. (2009). Compromised jurisprudence : native title cases since Mabo (2nd ed. ed.): Aboriginal Studies Press. Sutton, P. (2001). The politics of suffering: Indigenous policy in Australia since the 1970's / Peter Sutton. In. Sutton, P. (2011). The politics of suffering: Indigenous Australia and the end of the liberal consensus (2nd ed. ed.): Melbourne University Pub. Tatz, C. (1979). Race politics in Australia: Aborigines, politics and law: University of New England Publishing Unit. Tatz, C. (1982). Aborigines & uranium, and other essays: Heinemann Educational Australia. Tilley, E. a. L., T. . (2010). Learning from Kaupapa Māori: Issues and techniques for engagement. In: 2010. Tonkinson, R., Howard, M. C., Berndt, R. M., & Berndt, C. H. (1990). Going it alone?: prospects for Aboriginal autonomy : essays in honour of Ronald and Catherine Berndt: Aboriginal Studies Press. Toye, F. (2015). 'Not everything that can be counted counts and not everything that counts can be counted' (attributed to Albert Einstein). British journal of pain, 9(1), 7. doi:10.1177/2049463714565569 Traditional Owner objectives and outcomes: Compilation of contributions to Victoria’s water resource plans. (2019). Retrieved from https://www.water.vic.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0035/429839/Vic_WRPs_Traditional_ Owner_Objectives_Outcomes_compilation_2019_lr.pdf? 243

Trudgen, R. I. (2000). Why warriors lie down and die: towards an understanding of why the Aboriginal people of Arnhem Land face the greatest crisis in health and education since European contact : djambatj mala: Aboriginal Resource & Development Services Inc. Tsey, K. (2012). Improving Indigenous community governance through strengthening Indigenous and government organisational capacity [electronic resource] / Komla Tsey ... [et al.]. In. Tsey, K., Harvey, D., Gibson, T., & Pearson, L. (2009). The Role of Empowerment in Setting a Foundation for Social and Emotional Wellbeing. Australian e-Journal for the Advancement of Mental Health, The, 8(1), 6-15. Tuhiwai-Smith, L. (2012). Decolonizing methodologies: research and indigenous peoples (2nd ed. ed.): Zed Books. Tynan, M. (2007). Shifting Egalitarianisms and Contemporary Racism in Rural Victorian Football: The Rumbalara Experience. Australian Journal of Anthropology, 18(3), 276-294. doi:10.1111/j.1835-9310.2007.tb00096.x Unluer, S. (2012). Being an Insider Researcher while Conducting Case Study Research. Qualitative Report, 17. Walter, M. (2016). Data politics and Indigenous representation in Australian statistics. Indigenous data sovereignty: Toward an agenda, 38, 79-98. Walter, M. (2018). The voice of indigenous data: Beyond the markers of disadvantage. Griffith REVIEW(60), 256-263. Walter, M., & Moreton-Robinson, A. M. (2009). Indigenous methodologies in social research. In: Oxford University Press 2009-10. Ward, M. (2016). The Cummeragunja walk-off: a study of black/white politics and public discourse about race, ideology and place on the eve of the Second World War. Watson, S. (2014). Justice for Aboriginal and TSI people. Green Left Weekly(999), 26-26. Weaver, H. (2013). Emerging and Submerging: Ebbs, Flows, and Consistency in Expressions of Indigenous Identity. In (pp. 109-124). Webb, J. (2012). Indigenous peoples and the right to self determination / Jill Webb. In. Williams, D. R., Neighbors, H. W., & Jackson, J. S. (2003). Racial/Ethnic Discrimination and Health: Findings From Community Studies. American Journal of Public Health, 93(2), 200-208. doi:10.2105/AJPH.93.2.200 Witoslawski, A. (2018, 28/03/2018). View for a brighter future: The unveiling of the William Cooper memorial. Shepparton News Wotherspoon, T., & Hansen, J. (2013). The "Idle No More" Movement: Paradoxes of First Nations Inclusion in the Canadian Context. Social Inclusion, 1(1), 21-36. doi:10.17645/si.v1i1.107 Wyatt, K. (2020, 06 February ). Constitutional Recognition of Indigenous Australians. Retrieved from https://ministers.pmc.gov.au/wyatt/2020/constitutional-recognition-indigenous-australians Yates, L. (2006, 2006). Does education need the concept of class like a fish needs a bicycle, or is class more like water in the fish-in-water problem? Yin, R. K. (2003). Applications of case study research (2nd ed. ed.): Sage Publications. Yin, R. K. (2009). Case study research : design and methods (4th ed. ed.): SAGE. Young, S. (2001). The Trouble with Tradition: Native Title and the Yorta Yorta Decision. University of Western Australia Law Review, 30(1), 28-50. Zafaris, A. (2016). Cummeragunja: The Aboriginal football team that opened the eyes of White Australia. Retrieved from https://www.shootfarken.com.au/cummeragunja-aboriginal- football-team-that-opened-the-eyes-of-white-australia/ Zeldenryk, L., & Yalmambirra. (2006). Occupational deprivation: A consequence of Australiaʼs policy of assimilation. Australian Occupational Therapy Journal, 53(1), 43-46.

244

Zubrick S, D. P., Gee G, Glaskin B, Kelly K, Paradies Y. (2010). Working Together: Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Mental Health and Wellbeing Principles and Practice. Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia.

245

APPENDIX A – PLAIN LANGUAGE STATEMENT

Prosperity on Country: How to reposition the social, cultural and economic value of Indigenous people in the Goulburn Murray region of Victoria

Professor Shaun Ewen Tel: +61 3 8344 3389 E ma i l : [email protected] Raelene Nixon (Ph.D. student) Email: [email protected] Professor Margaret Kelaher E: [email protected] Doctor Christina Malatzky E: [email protected]

Ethics ID Number: 1851319.1

Introduction

Thank you for your interest in participating in this research project, which is the basis for the student researcher PhD. The following few pages will provide you with further information about the project so that you can decide if you would like to take part in this research.

Please take the time to read this information carefully. You may ask questions about anything you do not understand.

Your participation is voluntary. If you do not wish to take part, you do not have to. If you begin participating, you can also stop at any time.

What is this research about?

This research has three aims. Firstly, to investigate how we challenge the historical and generational behaviours embedded in the country's culture to shift and reposition the value of Indigenous people in the Goulburn Murray Region. Secondly, to investigate how the region can engage in or deliver a prosperity plan that has education and training and economic participation equal to the sustainability of culture. Lastly, to identify a regional model for how to reposition the social, cultural, and economic value of Indigenous peoples for the GM region.

What will I be asked to do?

Should you agree to participate, you will be asked to contribute by taking part in an interview of about one (1) hour. During this interview, you will be asked a series of questions to share your perspective and knowledge as a leader working in this space. I am interested in your thoughts about the concept of prosperity on country and repositioning the value of Indigenous people, and of the various factors you think impact or impede on that, as well as barriers or enables, based on your experience.

246

With your permission, the interview would be audio-recorded. This recording will then be transcribed, and you will be provided with a copy of the transcript upon request.

What are the possible benefits?

The major benefits of this project are that it is a community-identified project established by the Indigenous community for the Indigenous community, with the support of the Indigenous leaders in the GM region. It answers specific questions raised by the community about how Indigenous community development and governance can achieve better outcomes. The results of this study will inform the development of a framework for considering how to work at repositioning the value of Indigenous peoples.

What are the possible risks?

The sample size for this research is relatively small, so there is a risk that participants could be identified. Every possible care will be taken by researchers involved in this project to ensure that participants are not identifiable by the information they provide. You will also be allowed to be identified in the research if you wish.

Qualitative research that explores sensitive topics in depth has the potential to cause emotional distress. A list of relevant counselling services will be on hand, and the student researcher will be available to discuss any concerns or issues you have.

Do I have to take part?

No. Participation is completely voluntary. Your participation in this study is completely voluntary. Should you wish to withdraw at any stage or withdraw any unprocessed data you have supplied, you are free to do so without prejudice.

Will I hear about the results of this project?

The results of this project will be presented at community consultations with the Indigenous community in the region to make the research public and accessible through publication in academic journals, participation in seminars, workshops and conferences, and the presentation of research results to interested community organisations, and government departments working with Indigenous communities. Also, you can choose on your Consent Form to receive a copy of a community report at the completion of this project.

What will happen to information about me?

Your anonymity and the confidentiality of your responses will be protected to the fullest possible extent, within the limits of the law. Your name and contact details will be kept in a 247

separate, password-protected computer file from any data you supply. In the final report, you have the right to be referred to by a pseudonym. However, if you wish to be identified in publications or similar, you can indicate this on the consent form. Any references to personal information that might allow someone to guess your identity will be removed. You should note that as the number of people we seek to interview is relatively low, someone may still be able to identify you. It is also possible that the results will be presented at academic conferences, seminars and published in academic journals. In accordance with University policy, the data will be kept securely for five years from the date of publication before being destroyed.

Where can I get further information?

If you would like more information about the project, please contact the researchers; Responsible Researcher: Professor Shaun Ewen - 03 8344 3389, or

Student Researcher: Raelene Nixon – 0358236630.

Who can I contact if I have any concerns about the project?

This research project has been approved by the Human Research Ethics Committee of The University of Melbourne. If you have any concerns or complaints about the conduct of this research project and do not wish to discuss with the research team, you should contact the Manager, Human Research Ethics, Research Ethics and Integrity, University of Melbourne, VIC 3010. Tel: +61 3 8344 2073 or Email: HumanEthics- [email protected]. All complaints will be treated confidentially. Please provide the name of the research team or the name or ethics ID number in any correspondence.

248

APPENDIX B – CONSENT FORM

Prosperity on Country: How to reposition the social, cultural and economic value of Indigenous people in the Goulburn Murray region of Victoria

Professor Shaun Ewen Tel: +61 3 8344 3389 Email: [email protected] Raelene Nixon (Ph.D. student) Email: [email protected] Professor Margaret Kelaher E: [email protected] Dr Christina Malatzky E: [email protected]

Ethics ID number: 1851319.1

Name of Participant:

1. I consent to participate in this project, the details of which have been explained to me, and I have been provided with a written plain language statement to keep. 2. I understand that the purpose of this research is to investigate the concept of prosperity on country, and how to reposition the value of Indigenous people and the various factors you think impact or impede on that, as well as barriers or enables, based on your experience. 3. I understand that my participation in this project is for research purposes only. 4. I acknowledge that the possible effects of participating in this research project have been explained to my satisfaction. 5. I will be required to participate in an interview of about one (1) hour. During this interview, I will be asked a series of questions to share my perspective and knowledge as a leader working in this space. 6. I understand that my interviews may be audio recorded, and/or the student researcher will take additional handwritten notes. This recording will be transcribed, and I will be provided with a copy of the transcript upon request. 7. I understand that my participation is voluntary. I am free to withdraw from this project anytime without explanation or prejudice and withdraw any unprocessed data that I have provided. 8. I understand that the data from this research will be stored at the University of Melbourne and will be destroyed after five years. 9. I have been informed that the confidentiality of the information I provide will be safeguarded subject to any legal requirements; my data will be password protected and accessible only by the named researchers. 10. I understand that given the small number of participants involved in the study, it may not be possible to guarantee my anonymity.

249

11. I understand that after I sign and return this consent form, it will be retained by the researcher

I wish to be identified in the research □ yes □ no

I wish to receive a summary project report on research findings □ yes □ no

Please provide details of where a report can be sent to you on completion of this project:

Address or Email:

Participant signature: Date:

250

APPENDIX C – COMMUNITY INTERVIEW SCHEDULE

PROJECT TITLE: PROSPERITY ON COUNTRY: HOW TO REPOSITION THE SOCIAL, CULTURAL AND ECONOMIC VALUE OF INDIGENOUS PEOPLE IN THE GOULBURN VALLEY REGION OF VICTORIA

COMMUNITY INTERVIEW PROTOCOL

This is a guide - interviews will be unstructured covering these topics and related issues as they are discussed.

1. Introduce study 2. Review information statement 3. Answer any questions 4. Sign consent forms

WARM-UP QUESTIONS

1. Can you tell me a bit about yourself? 2. Can you tell me about your experience in indigenous affairs? 3. What do you enjoy about your involvement in this organisation/community? 4. What do you find most challenging? 5. Can you tell me about the ways your role directly involves working in or with Indigenous community/ies? 6. What do you think are the key strengths and challenges facing this particular Indigenous community? 7. From your perspective, how do you think the Indigenous community here sees itself? o What do you think the strengths and weaknesses are? o How do you think they view their current position in terms of how they fit into society? o What sort of barriers do you think Indigenous people face? o What sort of things do you think could be done to overcome these? 8. From your perspective, what are the various ways Indigenous people are viewed and understood in the wider community (society)? 9. What do you understand the current position of indigenous people to be in this community? 10. Where do you think that position comes from?

251

11. Why do you think indigenous people are viewed that way? o What are some of the things that can challenge that view? o What can be done to build on the strengths? o What are some of the steps that can be taken to achieve that?

GOVERNANCE

12. Can you tell me about the current governance structures of the Goulburn Murray community? (what Indigenous organisations does this community have, how are they governed)?

13. Can you tell me about the way the community work together to achieve mutual outcomes,

14. do you think there is a collective vision/purpose that the community are working towards

15. What do you think works well?

16. What do you think could be improved on?

17. What do you think an ideal community governance structure would look like?

18. What steps do you think the Indigenous community could work towards to achieve that in terms of a regional governance committee?

GOVERNMENT

19. Can you tell me about the way your organisation does business with government? (what is the process of seeking funding, reporting etc.)

o What’s good about this process? o What do you think could be improved on? o Do you think there is a better process? If so, what would that look like?

LANGUAGE

20. How would you describe the current process for Indigenous communities to access funding? o Thinking now about the sorts of funding applications you have contributed to, what language is used to describe Indigenous people in this community? o What effect do you think that has on the consequent position of Indigenous people in terms of the language/narrative around Indigenous people? o Do you think the requirement to obtain funding effectively reflects the position of this community? 252

o What do you think are some of the impacts on Indigenous community with the current government funding arrangements?

o What are some of the challenges you have come across? o What sort of things have you done to address any of these challenges?

GENERAL 21. Can you see any benefits or barriers to the Indigenous community working together to advocate for alternative models of government investment into the community?

22. How can the community move towards a collective vision and to work in collaboration to achieve mutual goals? o This includes both internally (i.e. With other indigenous organisations and external with broader society (for example, local council and government, business sector – anyone else?).

23. Do you think it is possible for the Goulburn Murray region of Victoria to reposition their social, cultural and economic value? – do you think those three areas (social, cultural & economic value) are important? • Can you elaborate on your view is of the current social, cultural and economic value is? o If so, what are ways in which you think this could be done? o If not, can you tell me why you think it’s not possible and have any other suggestions or recommendations?

19. How do we achieve a life with parity, reciprocity, respect, economic growth, sustainability, leadership and accountability for Indigenous people in this region?

• How do we invest in building a shared vision and agenda based on investment and not deficit models 20. Is there anything further you would like to share with me about your perspectives on any issues or topics we have discussed?

Thank you for your time

253

APPENDIX D – GOVERNMENT INTERVIEW SCHEDULE

GOVERNMENT INTERVIEW PROTOCOL

This is a guide - interviews will be unstructured covering these topics and related issues as they are discussed. 1. Introduce study 2. Review information statement 3. Answer any questions 4. Sign consent forms

WARM-UP QUESTIONS 1. Can you tell me a bit about yourself? 2. Can you tell me about your experience in indigenous affairs? 3. What do you enjoy about your or your role in government? 4. What do you find most challenging? 5. Can you tell me about the ways your role directly involves working in or with Indigenous community/ies? STRENGTHS AND CHALLENGES 6. What do you think are the key strengths and challenges facing this particular Indigenous community? o From your experience, what do you think is different from other Indigenous communities for the GM Indigenous community? o What do you think the community can do to build on their strengths and successes o Who’s responsibility is it? Do you think

7. From your perspective, how do you think the Indigenous community here sees itself?

o What do you think the strengths and weaknesses are? o How do you think they view their current position in terms of how they fit into society? o How do you think the broader society view Indigenous people in this region o Where do you think those perspectives come from o What sort of barriers do you think Indigenous people face? o Who do you think should take responsibility for addressing those barriers

Thank you for your time

254

APPENDIX E-RECRUITMENT MATERIAL

RE: INVITATION TO PARTICIPATE IN RESEARCH

Dear………,

My name is Raelene Nixon, and I am a Dungala Kaiela Research Fellow at the Poche Centre for Indigenous Health, University of Melbourne. You are invited to participate in a doctoral research project being conducted under the primary supervision of Professor Shaun Ewen from the Melbourne School of Population and Global Health at The University of Melbourne. This research has three aims. Firstly, to investigate how the region can challenge the historical and generational behaviours embedded in the country's culture to shift and reposition the value of Indigenous people in the Goulburn Murray Region. Secondly, to investigate how the region can engage in or deliver prosperity plan that has education and training and economic participation equal to the sustainability of culture, knowledge transfer. Lastly, to create a model for how to reposition the social, cultural and economic value of Indigenous peoples in the GM region.

You are invited to participate in this research project because you have been identified as a key leader and/or decision-maker in Indigenous community development. Should you agree to participate in this research project, you would be asked to contribute by taking part in an interview of about one (1) hour. During this interview, you will be asked a series of questions to share your perspective and knowledge as a leader working in this space. I am interested in your thoughts about the concept of prosperity on country and repositioning the value of Indigenous people, and of the various factors you think impact or impede on that, as well as barriers or enables, based on your experience.

I have attached a plain language statement that sets out the particulars of my research project. Please take the time to read this information carefully. Your participation in this study is completely voluntary. Should you wish to withdraw at any stage or withdraw any unprocessed data you have supplied, you are free to do so without prejudice. If you would like to participate or require further information, I can contact [email protected] or mobile: 0409560460.

Your knowledge and expertise in this area will be a valuable contribution to this project, and your participation will be very much appreciated.

Yours sincerely,

Raelene Nixon

255

256

Minerva Access is the Institutional Repository of The University of Melbourne

Author/s: Nixon, Raelene Leigh

Title: Prosperity on country: How to reposition the social, cultural and economic value of Indigenous people in the Goulburn Murray region

Date: 2020

Persistent Link: http://hdl.handle.net/11343/279358

File Description: Final thesis file

Terms and Conditions: Terms and Conditions: Copyright in works deposited in Minerva Access is retained by the copyright owner. The work may not be altered without permission from the copyright owner. Readers may only download, print and save electronic copies of whole works for their own personal non-commercial use. Any use that exceeds these limits requires permission from the copyright owner. Attribution is essential when quoting or paraphrasing from these works.