Let’s end ‘shade’ money in the NT
DOMINIC MCCORMACK
“VULNERABLE”. The new descriptor for remote Aboriginal Territorians used during the pandemic.
And who could argue? Of the 40-plus people deceased, many if not most were remote Aboriginal Territorians. Overcrowded housing emerged as a prime reason for this, with residents struggling to isolate. Questions were raised about the NT government’s promise (pre-Covid) to spend
$1.1bn addressing it, with only a portion used. It has promised to complete the program.
Pandemic recovery is linked to the NT building a $40bn economy by 2030.
The Territory Economic Reconstruction Commission highlighted that tourism was crucial, particularly the drive market. However, if people are to come to the Territory, key areas need to be addressed, including the issue of “itinerants” – code for remote Aboriginals causing problems in major centres, an issue on the rise. How is it then, that our remote Aboriginal Territorians are labelled as loathed itinerants and treasured vulnerable?
In the 1970s-80s, Wadeye was my childhood home. I learnt the language and developed knowledge required to live biculturally. Over time, however, I have seen living conditions and people’s capacity deteriorate. My best mate died at 48 from rheumatic heart disease. The situation is worsening. There are two key elements – firstly, the continued construction of housing in the wrong locations; secondly, a focus on welfare, not work. If these issues are not addressed, the future of the NT and development of a bigger economy is questionable.
Typically, a community is constructed on the land of one group of Traditional Owners with Aboriginal people from surrounding lands joining later, all facilitated by a provider from a different cultural and language background. By comparison, picture all of eastern and western Europe settling in Greece. This is facilitated by Indonesia, which owns all the land. How do the Greeks feel? How do the other European nations feel?
This model centralises service delivery, but is generating chaos – dislocation from country, from foundation; and disempowerment – if you are Greek, the Indonesians are now in charge; if you are the other Europeans, you have no authority to make decisions in another’s country. Over generations, elders’ ability to exert authority dissipates and children grow in an undisciplined world.
To that, add welfare – money for nothing or “shade” money. In particular, “royalty” payments from leasing Aboriginal land under the Land Rights Act. Rather than gain employment, some exist for their next royalty payment.
I have watched people running down streets chasing Land Council troop carriers so they do not miss the royalty meeting. This has become an all-consuming ritual of remote life, creating a culture of irresponsibility and reliance on others.
Once paid, it is the second-hand car dealers, the bottle shops, the pokies and the drug dealers that gain most from these distributions. This should come as no surprise. People struggling in low socioeconomic conditions are rarely able to use significant funds to generate a long-term future; rather, they enable satisfaction of immediate wants.
The results are clear – large communities and “shade” money generate overcrowded housing; limited lifespans; disgraceful education results; near nonexistent employment; a growing itinerant population; and, an overflowing Holtze prison. In short, a traumatised and vulnerable population. Welcome to life in remote NT.
Opportunity exists to transform
this. The TERC has identified Inclusive and Just Societies as a megatrend from which the NT can prosper. It highlights “a strong focus on inclusive societies and mature relationships with First Nations peoples”, with these to provide “opportunity for Aboriginal Territorians to economically benefit from a growth agenda”. Such lofty rhetoric must now be made real.
The NTG’s local decisionmaking policy is a start. The Aboriginal Justice Agreement is seen as a game changer; a “sands in the hands” moment. The NTG and councils must continue work with the Traditional Owners of major centres (Darwin, Katherine, Tennant Creek, Alice Springs), and aim for a treaty with each. Imagine then if a majority of remote residents were housed, in good health, educated and employed in/ owned an enterprise?
The opportunity cost of government spending must be considered and people living the issues listened to. Is housing and infrastructure built to enable remote Territorians to live on or close to their own lands, or do we accept chaos? Only the first option will see Aboriginal people have authority on country; improve living standards; and, gain mental space to envision a future.
Consider also the NT’s growing security importance. While closure of Ranger and the impending closure of mines at Nhulunbuy and Groote Eylandt will reduce employment opportunities and NTG revenue, more importantly, what does it mean for a resident population across the expanses of the Top End? If our remote areas see lack of investment and Aboriginal Territorians leave them due to the chaos – then what?
Who is watching? How do we “hold” the North?
Finally, “royalties” must end. Payments must instead be directed to a clan group’s corporate entity with a focus on developing education, training, business and investment opportunities, truly benefiting those on the land. It will also begin to change the “shade” money mentality, highlighting that income requires activity and education is required to secure employment or develop enterprise.
These steps will strengthen those described as “vulnerable” and “itinerants”.
Additionally, they will strengthen the whole NT so it is a place we can all be proud of and benefit from.