1. Cultural Governance – Where Culture Belongs in Relation to Governance and Representation The Human Rights and Equal Opportunities Commission Social Justice Report of 2012, on page 86, proposes a framework for effective, legitimate and culturally relevant Indigenous governance that has three key components: • community governance • organisational governance • the governance of governments. Sadly, in the post – ATSIC period, issues relating to Indigenous Governance and Indigenous representation have been relegated to second tier issues and the role of Aboriginal culture [as distinct from ‘the arts’] has been relegated to a third tier issue. In the post – ATSIC period we have witnessed a range of initiatives relating to the Governance of Government, most notably the COAG arrangements, Close the Gap and specific initiatives such as the COAG Remote Service Delivery arrangements. Across the same period we have seen the development and enhancement of a range of initiatives relating to organisational governance, most notably the role of ORIC and also the proliferation of PBCs. But across that same period, there has been almost no development in regards to issues of community governance, except in as much as there are aspects of organisational governance and the governance of governments which do relate to the community. Indeed, Governments oftentimes demonstrate through their policy and funding actions that they believe that there are only two dimensions to Governance, and they totally ignore the reality that community governance has traditions which date back over 60, 000 years. The way that these traditions play out in terms of Governance and Representation in the Kimberley can be seen through the KALACC logo, as attached, and as described in the Indigenous Governance Toolkit: KALACC represents themselves through a simple diagram of concentric circles. “At the very core are the senior cultural bosses, the law men and women of the Kimberley. These people may not be KALACC Directors but they are KALACC members and they are our clientele. The next circle out is the middle aged to elder group who are themselves cultural leaders and who liaise closely with the inner circle of cultural bosses. The next circle out are the staff and others associated with the organisation who are tasked with the responsibility of enacting the wishes of the Directors. Next circle out is the broader membership of the Kimberley. And the final circle is the outside world”. http://toolkit.aigi.com.au/case-studies/kimberley-aboriginal-law-and-culture-centre 2 Both Senator Pat Dodson and Ms June Oscar, Social Justice Commissioner, articulate the importance of cultural governance through their comments in the KALACC publication New Legend: So, the importance of Law and Culture and a Committee and a Council that grapples with these things is multi – faceted. It is ultimately the body that has to be respected and we have to account to on where we’re going, in what we’re doing as leaders, or as people who are about change, who are about restructuring, redirection, about accommodation, negotiation with the western world, with the Australian world. So you need a sense of who your bosses are, your leaders. I mean bosses who have knowledge, who have ceremony, who have song, have dance, who know the country, who’ve got language, who are responsible for admission in to that or exclusion out of it, as well as guidance and direction over many, many things that crop up in life, personally or collectively. That’s what Law and Culture is about. [Senator Dodson, New Legend, page 17] I think the issue is how do we remain true and strong to what our senior people have taught us? And the way they went about dealing with other Aboriginal and non – Aboriginal people, in a respectful way but in a way that you meant business when you dealt with people. And how we don’t lose sight of all those values in becoming leaders of tomorrow, and how we carry ourselves into the future. [June Oscar, New Legend, page 18] So, this is the critical issue. If as an Australian nation we are grappling with issues of Aboriginal representation and at the same time Aboriginal governance, then as part of that dialogue we have to address the absolute and fundamental centrality of culture and of cultural governance. As the KALACC staff said in their presentation to the Committee in Fitzroy Crossing on 13 June, the elders are at the centre, the cultural bosses are at the centre. And the outside world consists of concentric circles emanating out from the elder, depending on how close and how aligned the outside world is to the cultural leadership. This is a dialogue and a discussion which we are only just starting to have in this country. 3 2. Structures, Frameworks and Policies Relating to Cultural Governance and Leadership Regional Governance In February 2011 the Western Australian Indigenous Advisory Board brought down its Final Report. This is what the Board had to say: Many of the accepted indicators of the effects of Council of Australian Government programs, i.e. education participation, health, engagement with the justice and corrective systems, are worsening for Western Australia. This suggests that the ongoing philosophy of assimilation that is obvious if unstated in underpinning “overcoming disadvantage” and “closing the gap” programs may be a contributor to growing Aboriginal alienation and dysfunction. The Board has developed the view that the help and cooperation of Aboriginal people are required if this trend is to be turned around. The fundamental premise is that only Aboriginal people can solve Aboriginal problems and they can only be empowered to do this through shared strategies and plans developed in a partnership that is based on equality and recognises and respects their cultures and knowledge. The Board also recognises that the deliberate and sustained erosion of Aboriginal culture over many years and attempts to replace it with layers of corporate structures makes this empowerment a task of considerable complexity. Over the last ten years Native Title bodies and emerging prescribed bodies corporate have helped form a pathway to more advanced forms of negotiation and participation by traditional owners but they are not sufficiently embracing in their current form to address all the requirements of a successful strategy. It will therefore require significant resourcing to build the leadership, trust and confidence and to allow the building or rebuilding of culturally legitimate structures that can partner governments in the business of strategy development and governance… The Board is proposing regional governance for all stakeholders in a region and a requirement for external agencies to comply with the regional visions and negotiate within the regional strategic frameworks generated from them. Final Report [pages 1, 2] The Hansard of the KALACC presentation to the Committee on 13 June reads in part as follows: CHAIR: If we had a regional voice for the Kimberley, would that be a good region, as it were—that there's enough commonality across the Kimberley? Mr Carter: Yes. 4 CHAIR: Are the protocols that you've talked to us about in relation to both elders and intermediaries unique to the Kimberley, or would we find that in other communities as well? Mr Carter: It varies. The way our protocols are set down may be different to those in the Pilbara. Me being a Kimberley Aboriginal Law and Culture Centre person, I keep referring to how we made decisions in the past. And that's what governments should recognise—that protocol, and to have a Kimberley committee is I think a good idea. The Pilbara might have a slightly different protocol, but that protocol of the old man in the centre is universal. KALACC is heartened by the positive developments in various state jurisdictions in regards to the implementation of State Treaties with Aboriginal people. But in Western Australia the key recommendations from the Indigenous Implementation Board [IIB] all related to the re- setting of the relationship between Government and Aboriginal community, so as to recognise Aboriginal culture. This can be achieved through Treaties and through Regional Governance. Sadly, in Western Australia these matters have not progressed at all since the IIB Report was released in February 2011. Indigenous Governance and Leadership Framework At the Commonwealth level, in the February 2013 Prime Minister’s Closing the Gap Report on page 144 we read the following words: National Indigenous Governance and Leadership Framework The Government is leading the development of a National Indigenous Governance and Leadership Framework in partnership with state and territory governments. The framework will provide strategic direction for governments and recognise and promote best practice across urban, regional and remote locations. The National Indigenous Reform Agreement states that strong leadership is needed to champion and demonstrate ownership of reform. Effective governance arrangements in communities and organisations as well as strong engagement by governments at all levels are essential to long-term sustainable outcomes. Consultation has been undertaken with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander leaders, governance and leadership experts and academics, Australian Government agencies and state and territory governments. The Framework is being undertaken in conjunction with the Council of Australian Government’s Select Council on Women’s Issues project on developing a national approach to promoting the leadership of Aboriginal and Torres Islander women in governance and decision-making within communities. 5 A copy of the Draft Council of Australian Governments National Indigenous Governance and Leadership Framework is attached to this presentation. That draft document is as close as the Commonwealth has ever come in the 13 years since ATSIC was abolished to any serious consideration of Aboriginal governance and leadership issues. In the absence of serious consideration of these matters, Governments have focused on an extremely narrow agenda based around Employment, Education and Safe Communities.