The critical focus of my research is on understanding how western (incorporated) and customary (kin-based) forms of governance have been balanced in the operations of BAC. At one level, there has clearly been a successful mediation of these two quite different governance approaches. This is evidenced by the longevity of BAC, its growth and its success. At another level, historically there has been ready deferral to non-Aboriginal management, at least until recent times, which might suggest abrogation of governance responsibilities. What is remarkable about the BAC case is how these identified governance tensions have been astutely accommodated over a long period of time, while the organisation has experienced impressive growth and performance. In this section, I focus more specifically on the period since 2005 and what I have observed.

As noted earlier, the rapid growth of BAC in the 1990s was not matched by sufficient investment in organisational development. Between 2005 and 2007, there has been a rapid increase in focus on formal governance issues and a growing membership participation in governance. Historically, BAC management had been a little reluctant to embrace formal governance capacity building for its membership in part, because there was some reluctance to tamper with an organisational model that was working. A number of factors challenged and ultimately changed this view, including: external review and active participation in strategic planning in 2003; a change of organisational leadership in 2005; and a willingness by the executive and senior management to participate in the ICGP from 2005. A parallel process of governance training within the broader Maningrida community, sponsored by the Office of the Registrar of Aboriginal Corporations (ORAC) and delivered by the Maningrida JET Centre, a registered training organisation, also highlighted BAC’s deficiencies in this area and provided some opportunity for governance training.

The new CEO, while a member of the senior management team since 1991, has embraced a greater focus on formal governance and has encouraged greater executive participation in the overall decision making for BAC. The strategy to change the governance balance to ensure greater membership participation has gained momentum. From 2004, BAC senior management moved to systematically address organisational deficiencies highlighted during strategic planning and incorporated in an action plan. In particular, executive committee members have been paid sitting fees and are expected to attend all meetings; the executive are involved more actively in agenda setting; more detailed records of meetings are maintained; and a number of members have participated in governance training. A survey of senior managers of four Maningrida-based organisations undertaken in mid 2005 suggested that they had all observed benefits from this governance training by the initial cohort of trainees—it provided participants with some understanding of corporate governance and financial management issues. Unfortunately, this training has only been provided on a sporadic basis owing to high staff turnover at the training centre, and in 2007 this training program was suspended.

Overall, in formal governance terms, BAC has adopted a far more transparent organisational culture in recent years: it has published annual reports of activities since 1999–2000, developed an Induction Manual (Johnson 2004), and has provided cross-cultural training for its non-Indigenous staff since 2004. There is no doubt that at a formal level BAC is regarded highly by ORAC, and in 2004–05 it rated special mention as a best practice Indigenous organisation (ORAC 2006: 37). BAC’s formal processes are sound, financial audits are invariably unqualified, and the overall financial performance of the organisation is probably without parallel in a remote Indigenous community context.

What is equally important is to understand how intercultural checks and balances have been maintained, or how the apparent incommensurability between western and customary social norms have been mediated. This has occurred in three interdependent ways.

First, the annually elected executive comprises between 11 and 15 representatives affiliated with different outstations and language groups. Turnover of executive members ensures that there is no dominance by one section of the regional membership and this is recognised as beneficial to the entire membership. The executive is invariably made up of members of the elite and the neo-elite, and in executive meetings and through informal institutions such as meetings in the ‘smoko’ room, consensus is reached on key policies and decisions like the allocation of new housing. It is not uncommon for non-executive members to attend such meetings as observers, in accord with customary decision making processes.

The position of chairman is important as this is a salaried position that also provides access to a highly valued chairman’s vehicle (when one is available). This prestigious position is invariably rotated on an annual basis, even though it is based on a secret ballot and is generally shared equitably between a number of language communities. In July 2006, the incumbent chairman identified the rapid turnover of his position as a potential problem for BAC and indicated a desire to possibly seek re-election, but this did not eventuate.

Second, there is careful negotiation of the tensions between customary obligations and legal compliance between non-Indigenous senior managers and members of the Indigenous executive. Much of BAC’s corporate success and sound governance can be sheeted home to the stability of its non-Indigenous senior management and seamless succession. Effectively, after the first executive officer established BAC in 1979–80, there have been only two more: one from 1980 to 2005, and the next from September 2005 (who was appointed after 14 years with the organisation since 1991). Such continuity and succession is extraordinarily important, especially in a corporate environment where the Indigenous executive is only appointed for a period of 12 months at a time. BAC’s organisational history and culture has ensured that senior managers have been appropriately attuned to the aspirations of BAC’s membership. Importantly, as BAC’s organisational scale and capacities have grown, there have been sufficient numbers of senior managers to ensure checks and balances on management decision making. As noted earlier, BAC is not averse to extra-regional scrutiny and constructive criticism, much of which emanates from a healthy organisational engagement with external, at-arms-length, independent research bodies.

Third, BAC executive and senior managers in particular retain an open-door policy whereby individuals have good access to discuss personal, family and outstation issues and priorities. This approach makes an important contribution to ensuring that governance is transparent and facilitates early detection and correction of any policy errors or misallocations. While this open-door approach is demanding and often appears time inefficient, it is something BAC has made into a virtue. As a general rule, there is an expectation that senior staff are prepared to commit to this governance mechanism.

None of this is intended to suggest that BAC’s operations are either tension or error free. From time to time, the social norms of customary governance take precedence and there have been disputes over unauthorised vehicle use and inappropriate use of order books, usually associated with ceremonial or funeral expenses. But as a general rule, these incidents are relatively rare; they are sometimes resolved by adapting existing procedures and usually by ensuring repayment of any outstanding advances. It is not unusual for the informal institution of public shaming to be invoked when excesses occur among members of the executive. Similarly, tensions can erupt between managers of business units, for they too need to compete for an equitable share of BAC resources. At times these can be mediated and resolved, at other times a manager may resign or be dismissed. The governance of an intercultural organisation like BAC is difficult and systems can break down. Over time, and especially in recent years, BAC has ensured that the fiscal bottom line is maintained, while enterprise innovation and associated risk is encouraged.

A critical, and at times highly problematic, challenge that has been highlighted is that long-term managerialism has probably inhibited Aboriginal executive decision making. It is too easy to highlight BAC’s success and longevity as a ‘business enterprise’ and to overlook its lack of success in genuinely representing and empowering its Aboriginal membership. The particular form of governance that operates at BAC is intercultural and hybrid. To retain its historic success as an organisation it will need to be increasingly adaptive and creative as it continues to address the re-alignment challenges posed by its need to operate effectively between western and Aboriginal worlds.