Northern Territory Government discussions with Indigenous leaders from West Arnhem Land about establishing a regional local government began in late 2002 under the reform agenda of the Building Stronger Regions, Stronger Futures (BSRSF) policy. Since then, the progress of the West Arnhem initiative has been subject to a constantly changing policy environment within the NT Government. The impacts of this have been exacerbated by equally tumultuous policy reforms at the national level.
The BSRSF policy was one in the long line of efforts by both the NT and Australian Governments to create various kinds of representative and administrative ‘regions’ over the Indigenous population.[5] In the NT, its antecedents lay in the previous Government’s policy initiative known as the Reform and Development Agenda (RADA). This policy sought to amalgamate the existing 65 local governing bodies[6] into around 20 ‘larger and more sustainable’ councils, ‘ideally representing and delivering services to at least 2000 people’. A key goal of RADA was the creation of ‘Indigenous governments with legitimate authority’ (Coles 2004).
The BSRSF policy similarly sought the voluntary amalgamation of community councils into large-scale local governments, which were to be called Regional Authorities, with 20 expected to be established. The policy vision was to enact ‘a radical transformation in the method of service delivery and regional Indigenous governance’ (Ah Kit 2002; see also Ah Kit 2003: 2–3) in collaboration with community councils and their leaders.
The rationale was the perceived parlous state of local government councils in the Territory, characterised by one NT Minister as constituting a ‘stark crisis’ of governance that included widespread ‘organisational bankruptcy’, ‘institutional incapacity’, ‘ineffective service delivery, fraud and corruption by staff and leaders, a high turnover of key non-Indigenous staff’, and an ‘historical legacy of poor governance’ (Ah Kit 2002: 1).
Evidence for that view came not only from lurid media accounts, but also from DCDSCA audits and compliance reviews of community councils. Those reported indicated that close to 50 per cent of local government bodies were either ‘highly dysfunctional’ or ‘at risk’ in terms of their financial management, service delivery and governance.
A critical factor underlying this failure rate has been the issue of scale. The average population serviced by Indigenous community and association councils is 670 persons (Local Government Association of the Northern Territory (LGANT) 2003: 4). In other words, many small, isolated community councils simply do not have the population size, economies of scale, resources, administrative systems, personnel or management expertise to adequately meet either their existing or potential service delivery obligations (Tapsell 2003).
In launching the BSRSF policy, the NT Government argued that ‘effective and legitimate frameworks for regional governance [would be] the foundations for any regional development strategy that will be sustainable over time’ (Ah Kit 2003). The policy intention was that regional authorities would:
have jurisdiction and powers as regionalised forms of local government under the Local Government Act 1978 (NT)
be established by ‘voluntary agreement’ between councils and require a ‘substantial majority of residents in favour’
be able to undertake ‘regional decision making to determine priorities, establish service delivery policies and allocate resources’, and
‘provide for decision-making structures that meet the needs of the communities to be governed and, where applicable incorporate strong relationships with cultural decision-making arrangements and particularly traditional owners’ (Ah Kit 2003).
The policy emphasis was to be on the flexibility of structures and timeframes, and the development of culturally-based representative and electoral arrangements.
A review of the Local Government Act 1978 (NT) was proposed to provide a better statutory foundation for regionalised local government.[7]
In mid 2004, at the end of the policy’s first year of implementation, the Australian Government abolished the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission (ATSIC). ATSIC had been a statutory-based national forum for Indigenous Australians, based on the election of representatives from every state and territory. Its abolition, and the attendant dismantling of the regional council structure, left a major representative vacuum in the NT, as elsewhere. So, while one form of statutory regionalism was being abolished, the proposed regional local governments came to be seen as a possible alternative in the eyes of some in the NT and Australian Governments, and of some former ATSIC regional councillors as well.
To cement what became a fortuitous convergence of policy directions, support for regional authorities was included in a bilateral Overarching Agreement on Indigenous Affairs negotiated between the NT and Australian Governments in mid 2005. A schedule to the agreement set out shared goals for the two Governments, which included working together to ensure:
‘effective and legitimate representation’;
that ‘the establishment of Regional Authorities involves voluntary amalgamations of community councils based on extensive and effective consultation to ensure constitutions reflect local aspirations, and have cultural legitimacy’; and
that the ‘amalgamation of community councils into Regional Authorities effectively addresses current problems of scale, improves service delivery, reduces staff turnover and ensures greater coordination and continuity of interest in community economic and social development’ (see Schedules 1 and 2.3 to the Overarching Bilateral Agreement on Indigenous Affairs, 2005).[8]
However, little more than 18 months later, in late 2006, the BSRSF policy framework was dramatically reformed by the NT Government and replaced with what was named the New Local Government policy.[9]
What had happened? The sudden demise of the BSRSF policy owed much to the ideological dissatisfaction and implementation difficulties experienced by government bureaucrats in trying to accommodate Indigenous ideas about ‘regions’ and representation for local government, and their consensus modes of decision making about these matters. Discussion and decision making took time, internal negotiation and sensitive facilitation—all of which challenged the capacity, commitment and resources of both the NT and Australian Governments. The political imperative for fast results chaffed at the more measured pace of voluntary regionalisation, and in the meantime, several NT community and association councils had collapsed owing to poor financial administration and governance.
The New Local Government policy framework attempted to contain the inherent slipperiness and flexibility of Indigenous governance institutions and decision-making processes. The policy did away with any formal recognition of culturally-based processes for determining local government regions, and effectively turned a blind eye to the potential for using Indigenous governance systems and issues of cultural geographies as the basis for the shire model.
Regionalisation was still the goal, but it was to be mandatory and meet government-imposed deadlines. To signal this major policy turnaround, Regional Authorities were renamed ‘Shires’. There were to be only nine in total, and their boundaries would be determined by government.
Indigenous input was corralled into newly-formed ‘Transitional Committees’ created by government to provide it with ‘advice’ about the establishment of each shire. Government, private sector and non-Indigenous stakeholders were able to participate on these committees, widening the range of parties and views. An ‘Advisory Board’ was established to support the implementation process and provide recommendations to the Minister for Local Government. Its members and the Chair (an experienced Indigenous leader) were appointed by the Minister.
The new policy proposed that the shires:
will be democratically elected by the people, just like everywhere else in Australia. All councils including the municipals will have a minimum of six and a maximum of twelve councillors … [and that] All Territorians who are registered on the electoral roll will have a say in who will represent their community by voting at the council election (DLGHS 2007).
A ‘one-size fits all’ approach was applied. The shires would have a single common governance structure, each with the same cap on the total numbers of representatives, and each sharing a single model constitution designed by the DLGHS and Parliamentary Counsel. All would deliver the same mandatory set of ‘core’ local government services, to be identified by government and set out in the new legislation.
In the early days of this NT policy reversal, in June 2007, the Australian Government responded to a damning report on child abuse in NT Indigenous communities (Anderson and Wild 2007) and, without notice to the NT Government, initiated a unilateral intervention to takeover the administration of some 60 remote Indigenous communities, including those in the West Arnhem region.
As part of the intervention, the Australian Government would compulsorily acquire leaseholds for discrete Indigenous settlements for an estimated minimum period of five years. All communities located on Aboriginal inalienable freehold land under the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976 (Cth) (ALRA) would have their permit systems revoked, and legislation was drafted and passed to enact changes to this Act.
Australian Government administrators (to be called ‘government business managers’), answerable to the Emergency Response Taskforce comprising Australian Army and Department of Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs and other government officials, were placed into ‘priority’ communities. Their job was to oversight mandatory health checks on children and to coordinate the intervention requirements in each community.
In late 2007, national elections were held and the Labor Party was elected as the Australian Government. In the early phase of its first term, it committed to evaluate the implementation of the NT intervention, whilst continuing with its basic strategies.
[5] See Behrendt et al. (2007), Sanders (2003, 2004) and Smith (1995, 1996, 2007) for a review of some of the different phases and forms of regionalism in Indigenous affairs.
[6] These include six municipal councils, 31 community government councils that are incorporated under NT legislation, and 28 association councils that are constituted under Commonwealth legislation. Approximately 80 per cent of these councils are situated on Aboriginal inalienable freehold land and so must operate within the statutory context of the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976 (ALRA), which provides protection and recognition for the rights and interests of traditional owners in matters of land access, use, planning, and management.
[7] This review was never carried out. A new Local Government Bill was eventually introduced to the NT Legislative Assembly in February 2008; it was debated in the mid year sittings and enacted in the second half of 2008. The Bill implements the radically changed ‘New Local Government’ policy that was commenced in 2007, not the BSRSF policy launched in 2003.
[8] The Overarching Agreement On Indigenous Affairs Between the Commonwealth of Australia and the Northern Territory of Australia 2005–2010 and associated schedules are available at <http://www.facsia.gov.au/internet/facsinternet.nsf/via/indigenous/$file/IndigenousAffairsAgreement.pdf> [accessed 5 May 2008].
[9] See ‘Local Government Reform’ on the DLGHS website at: <http://www.localgovernment.nt.gov.au/ new> [accessed 5 May 2008].