The concept of ‘governance’ is multi-dimensional as it moves between layers of institutions, governments, localities and discourses. To give this concept meaning to the ACGC, and to the then CEO, we took what we called an ‘issues’ based approach. This approach led us to Creek Camp, as its existence was an ‘issue’ for the NT Government that required a response from the council. Assisting the ACGC to develop a response to the Creek Camp ‘issue’ evolved as each period of research and subsequent reporting back opened up further avenues of investigation. The research could be understood as structured by three principal periods of activity. To help make the governance concept real for people, we delivered, verbally and via reports, the findings of each period of research activity in plain English to the council. We ensured that our subsequent visits coincided with a monthly council meeting, where our reports were an item on the agenda. The aim was that this would enable informed discussion about the Creek Camp and canvas potential options for change.

Our first report to the ACGC (June 2005, see Holcombe and Sanders 2007b)^[2] provided an overall snapshot of the residential arrangements of Creek Campers in what could be described as a ‘survey’. Using both a questionnaire and open ended interviews we ascertained length of residence, camp composition, mobility patterns, the attractions and difficulties of living at Creek Camp, and people’s preferred future residence and aspirations. We estimated 102 current and recent residents of the camp, grouped roughly into 13 sub-camps of self-identified Anmatyerr and Warlpiri people. The aspect of these findings that was perhaps the most informative for the Aboriginal councillors was the residential and development aspirations of the Creek Camp residents. Ten of the 13 camps indicated that they sought to remain in Creek Camp in the future and that they would like a minimum of reticulated water and ablution blocks. There was, however, some difference of opinion over the issue of housing. This considerable interest in development of some sort by all Creek Camp residents (whether or not they sought to remain there into the future) led the ACGC to ask us to continue on the project by broadening our enquiry beyond the Creek Camp.

The second stage of the research entailed a survey of residents of the roughly 35 houses in the Ti Tree town, and discussions by one of us (Sanders) with senior NT Government officials about their understandings of development possibilities of Creek Camp. As will be discussed, our key government contacts had, until then, been officers in the NT Department of Local Government. In the survey of Ti Tree town residents, other than ascertaining some basic demographic and social characteristics, we specifically asked their perspectives about the potential development of the Creek Camp. Of the 16 people interviewed, only three were opposed to any development there. The significant majority were supportive of development of the Creek Camp, including buildings, if that was what people wanted. The perspectives offered by those NT Government officials involved in infrastructure provision, however, had a somewhat different focus. They indicated that Creek Camp’s position on ‘unallocated vacant Crown land’ meant that there was no standard government mechanism through which it could be provided with reticulated services, and that for such servicing to happen an organisation, such as the ACGC, would have to apply for and obtain ‘appropriate’ title or tenure over the land. They would then also need to find a source of funding for the services. Given these apparent difficulties, the focus of most of the NT Government officials we spoke with was, rather, on ways in which Creek Camp residents could be encouraged to move elsewhere.^[3] Finally, we noted in our second report (May 2006) that there seemed to be some basis of support for doing something in Creek Camp among ACGC members, as well as among Creek Camp residents and Ti Tree residents more generally. However, it was clear, as we reported back, that the response from the Department of Planning and Infrastructure (DPI) within the NT Government had not been positive.

The third and final report to the ACGC (July 2006) was brief, as it outlined a new possibility for the development of Creek Camp that emerged as the second report was being circulated to NT Government officials. This possibility (originating from officials in the DPI) suggested that certain basic reticulated services such as water and electricity could possibly be provided under licence or ‘permissive occupancy’, without the legal complexity of land tenure change. The advantages of such an arrangement were outlined and included a more straightforward way of ensuring that native title was not extinguished, protection of the assets of the organisation providing the services, and the fact that there would have to be a limit on the services provided. In some ways, this final point suited the caution that Creek Camp residents felt about the possibility of the place becoming like a ‘town camp’; the perception that with development, greater numbers of people may be attracted, with the associated risk of the place becoming a ‘drinkers camp’ and thus changing the quiet, spread out nature of the place, one of its key advantages. Nevertheless, although this possibility of a more amenable legal option sounded hopeful and was discussed in our presentation to the council, the issue of whether this path was amenable as a policy option was less certain.

Making governance tangible in this research developed as a concern with revealing the legal and (later) policy structures that had the potential to facilitate or hinder change, as much as opening a space for dialogue about the potentials for change.^[4]