Essay: What does ‘Indigenous Governance’ mean and does it operate in Australia?

1. What is governance?

• The term governance is subject to substantial academic debate
• The Macquarie dictionary defines governance as government; exercise of authority and control. Academics tend to disagree with this definition because it’s too simplistic and reductive.
• Michel Foucault has described governance as the ‘conduct of conduct’, which has been extrapolated as the deliberate attempts of individuals organisations to shape the behavior of themselves and others
• In terms of development, governance has been described as control over the making of political rules
• Reilly defines governance as measures that involve setting the rules for the exercise of power and settling conflicts over such rules. If we use this definition, governance can be applied to the regulation of a wide range of entities including countries, communities and even individuals, and we can see that this is evident in the various forms of governance eg self-governance, community governance, corporate governance and global governance.
• Smith and Hunt –> ‘governance is not the same as government, service delivery, sovereignty or treaties; though all of these require effective governance.
• The term governance has broader connotations than the term government
• Governance is primarily how individuals collectively organize themselves in order to get the things done that matter to them. It requires the implementation and planning of shared rules and organisation.
• It is about how individuals distribute power and authority; how they make and implement decisions, how they uphold responsibilities and obligations to one another, and dispute resolution

2. What is ‘indigenous’ governance?

• Another heavily debated topic
• Encyclopaedia Britannica defines Indigenous governance as ‘the patterns and practices of rule by which indigenous people govern themselves in formal and informal settings’. Governance encompasses the myriad of ways indigenous people have governed themselves despite colonisation.
• Governance practices can be organized into three broad categories:
  • Practices that occurred prior to colonization. This category includes existing forms of political community before settlement. Often these forms of governance continue and make up a significant part of the political lives of indigenous people. This form of governance could include traditional diplomatic practices and relationships between indigenous groups and collective organization. For example, families or tribes
  • The second category includes practices sanctioned by colonial powers. Where indigenous communities have been integrated, to some extent, into the political structures of the colonial power. Australia’s history is a good example of this because, the regulation of indigenous people was incorporated into colonial structures, formally and informally. In more modern terms though this arguably manifests itself as participation in governance/government, some examples include formal legal challenges, sitting in elective office.
  • Practices that are specifically developed and exercised in opposition to colonial power. Indigenous peoples have resisted colonialism and have practiced political governance to counteract the negative effects of exploitation and domination. These forms of resistance may include the organization and coordination of movements toward decolonization, antiracist activism, and warrior societies.
  • Finally, the third category, includes practices that were developed and exercised in opposition to colonial powers. This kind of governance could be coordinated movements toward decolonization, activism and even warrior societies.
• Modern Indigenous governance is often exemplified by more than one of these categories, simultaneously working with formal government structures, but indigenous governance could be modifying or resisting the structure.
• One interpretation it that Indigenous governance is limited to the processes internal to indigenous communities, and how they manage their rights. This is a narrow view
• Smith and Hunt assert that one way to conceptualize this form of indigenous governance in Australia is through Indigenous art.
• The squares are symbolic of indigenous groups, and communities. The links between them represent spiritual and social connections. This one view of indigenous governance: a network of relationships perpetuated by families, leaders, communities and organizations across the continent.
• An alternate perspective is that governance is comparative to self-determination, self-government and sovereignty.
• CONTRASTINGLY, Reilly asserts that indigenous governance encompasses the decisions that indigenous communities make in relation to how they govern themselves. It also extends to the way Indigenous people practice their own internal laws, independent any obligations under mainstream law. It also could embody how Indigenous people determine the manner in which their laws and rights under mainstream law intersect and operate.
• Subsequently, the most significant issue relating to Indigenous governance arguably how the government can facilitate autonomy and effectiveness of Indigenous governance
• Hopefully, now you can see that there isn’t major consensus on what ‘indigenous governance’ is, but generally it has a broad scope and could encompass a lot of practices and policies depending on what interpretation you find persuasive.

3. Do we have Indigenous governance in Australia and is it formally recognized?

• Depends on the definition of governance that you apply/ follow
• Smith and Hunt argue there is such thing as indigenous governance and it operates in accordance with Indigenous cultural principles, values and rules
• Since colonization, Indigenous governance has inevitably been altered by the imposition of colonial government.
• We know that Indigenous communities do not have official recognition of their independent status as self-governing entities which is arguably the greatest extension of governance.
• However, there is room to argue that the government has recognized indigenous governance to some degree and this has primarily manifested in government institutions.
• Reilly argues that modern government policy implicitly relies on forms of Indigenous governance in order to deliver services, as part of their policy.

Institutional forms of governance

• Sometimes these institutions have been designed by government as a way of including Indigenous people in decision making relating to policy and implementation
• Before 1967, power remained with the states and the key ideology driving government approaches at the time was assimilation. Indigenous participation in policy and law making was limited if at all because they could only offer informal advice at the time.
• After 1967, the Commonwealth took some responsibility from the states
• Council for Aboriginal Affairs was established. It was made up of three non-Indigenous men appointed by government. Government also created the Office of Aboriginal Affairs, which was part of the Prime Ministers department. These departments were essentially supposed to communicate between the commonwealth and state branches of government. However, Indigenous people still had limited influence shaping policy because they were not formally involved
• When the Whitlam government came into power in 1972 they established the Department of Aboriginal Affairs which took over the previous agencies. It provided advice on policy and implementation and was a significant agency until the introduction of ATSIC
• In 1972, the first national body elected by Indigenous people themselves was also established. This was the National Aboriginal Consultative Committee (NACC). Their relationship with the Whitlam government was strained because they wanted a more influential role, and greater control of the budget for Indigenous affairs. The NACC was criticized by the Indigenous community because the electorates were too big and the election process was not fair
• The Fraser government reviewed the NACC in 1977 and it was disbanded because it was found not to be an effective mechanism for providing advice or consultation
• It was replaced by the NAC, National Aboriginal Conference. The role of this body was to advise the federal minister and facilitate communication between Indigenous communities and the federal government
• NAC’s relationship was also strained, because it had limited powers, and was similarly criticized in relation to the choice of members.
• A review was later commissioned by the Hawke government and an audit revealed issues with financial management and so the NAC was abolished in 1985.
• In 1980, the Aboriginal Development Commission (ADC) was established. This statutory authority was run by a board of 10 indigenous commissioners appointed by the government. It had a role in service delivery up until ATSIC was created
• At the same time the Aboriginal Provisional Government (APG) was created. This political organization was external to government and reflected views that true representation of Indigenous Australians could only be achieved independently from the federal government. However, this organization lost momentum after the creation of ATSIC
• In 1989, ATSIC was established. This organization was designed to act as a comprehensive governance model for indigenous peoples, linking regions and acting as a federal representative body
• ATSIC was arguably a direct recognition of the existence of indigenous governance and highlights the government’s attempts to facilitate legal expression
• However, ATSIC’s powers and funding ultimately relied on the support of the Federal Government. Consequently, ATSIC was restrained from implementing some strategies in opposition to the Commonwealth
• Like other representative bodies, ATSIC attracted criticism in relation to the selection process of representatives and allegations of impropriety
• After abolishing ATSIC, government policy shifted focus away from governance, to service delivery
• ATSIC was replaced by the National Indigenous Council (NIC) which continued to advise the government on indigenous affairs.
• Members of this organization were appointed rather than elected. Subsequently, they could base decisions on their individual politics, and did not have a responsibility to represent Indigenous people more broadly. Additionally, this organization was advisory only.
• The NIC was wound up in early 2008.
• Currently, the organization advising the government is the Indigenous Advisory Council. They’ve been operating since 2013/2014. Their role currently is to advise government on practical changes that can be made in order to improve the lives of indigenous peoples. The purpose of this organization is to facilitate communication between government and indigenous leaders to ensure indigenous people are integral to decision making.
• In addition to these institutions, beginning the 1970s and continuing today, the government has also recognised indigenous governance through a variety of legislative mechanisms. These mechanisms include Indigenous corporations, land councils and local government councils.

4. Conclusion

• It should now be clear that the government has acknowledged the existence of indigenous governance in the past to some extent, but currently doesn’t have appropriate policies in place to appropriately recognize indigenous governance.
• Reilly argues that supporting the governance mechanisms of indigenous people will improve the social and economic conditions of that group
• There is still resistance to engage with indigenous governance

5. Discussion

Why is governance important to Indigenous people?

Do you think there is still resistance to engage with indigenous governance?

• Indigenous governance is reflective of cultural values
• It is not currently embodied in the governance strategies of Australia more broadly
• Given the history of colonization in Australia and the various disastrous policies implemented by previous governments, it is not unsurprising that governance is an issue
• There is clearly a history of disempowerment and oppression
• Indigenous governance is spoken of in the negative terms of corruption and dysfunction