Table of Contents
In the wider community, people who have a business idea and the means to develop their idea can develop their own enterprise at their own initiative. It is not as straightforward in Aboriginal communities. This is because Aboriginal people are invariably members of wider family groups and communities, and individuals are not completely free to undertake private enterprise … Similarly, opportunities are frequently seen as communal assets—belonging to clan groups or to communities, not to individuals … Indigenous social and cultural imperatives often result in the creation of decision-making and ownership structures that make enterprise ownership and management inefficient, unwieldy, impossible … Indigenous decision-making structures are about social and political representation, whereas optimum business decision-making should be about expertise, experience, knowledge and talent.
(Ah Mat 2003: 6)
The notion that all indigenous communities are the same is another of the myths or misunderstandings that has made its way into the policy and psyche of successive governments. Indigenous communities are diverse … Diversity is not only in terms of language groups, clans or country, it goes further. Some communities may see economic growth as their primary goal, while others may accord more importance to cultural richness and taking care of country. It is important that differing indigenous traditions and values be recognised and accommodated in a way that contributes to building strong communities rather than undermine them.
(Armstrong 2007: 75–6)
Behind the interest in Indigenous community governance lies a concern for the improved socioeconomic well being of Indigenous people. International research has found that there is a ‘development dividend’ (see Kaufmann 2005) attached to what is commonly referred to as ‘good governance’, and that it applies to quite poor countries and Indigenous societies (see Cornell and Kalt 1990; Kaufmann, Kraay and Mastruzzi 2005). In Australia, Indigenous communities are familiar with the cycle of business and economic development failures, and there is evidence that weak governance capacity is a contributing factor (Hunt and Smith 2006, 2007). In other words, Indigenous economic development is a governance issue.
The prime issue addressed in this chapter is whether there are particular kinds of organisational governance that might facilitate Indigenous economic success. The governance factors that impede Indigenous economic success have been extensively documented in Australia, to the point where there appears to be a public fixation on a deficit model of Indigenous economic development (see Dodson and Smith 2003 for a summary). This chapter focuses on the forms of organisational culture, governance representation, institutional frameworks and decision-making that facilitate rather than undermine economic success. This concern goes to the heart of ‘who’ should be the relevant Indigenous actors in the governance of economic initiatives, and the extent to which ‘governing for business’ should reflect Indigenous cultural values, relationships and systems of authority.
In Australia, these are hotly contested matters. The Indigenous commentators whose quotes open this chapter highlight one of the biggest challenges for Indigenous Australians in their governance arrangements today—namely, mediating the considerable tensions, expectations, and contemporary myths surrounding the role of ‘community’ and ‘family’ in Indigenous societies and their economic development. Many stakeholders agree with Richard Ah Mat above, that the social and cultural imperatives which are part of Indigenous family and community life are problematic for the kind of governance that is thought necessary for generating successful businesses and other economic development outcomes. Others identify ‘family’ and ‘community’ as potential sources of social and cultural capital, but ones that need to be strategically managed and ‘balanced’ within an organisation’s governance arrangements and business objectives.
Indigenous organisations attempting to operate businesses seem to be particularly vulnerable. Their viability as businesses can be quickly eroded, not only by divisive conflicts created by community and family politics, but also by the unrealistic demands of government and the private sector, which hold their own ideological views about the role that ‘community’ and ‘family’ should and should not play in governance and economic development. For urban organisations and leaders engaged in business enterprises, key areas of vulnerability and challenge include:
negotiating what constitutes ‘the community’ and ‘family’ in the light of historical resettlement, ongoing high rates of mobility, and the often tangled web of urban relationships and land-ownership rights;
negotiating processes of representation and decision making that support their economic goals, at the same time as building the internal and external legitimacy of their governance;
responding to the diverse views and cultural values that Indigenous people have about their community, families and their governance needs;
balancing Indigenous calls for more inclusive ‘community’ participation in, and access to, the services and benefits provided by organisations, alongside the hard-headed decision making and corporate governance required for economic success;
responding to government pressure for ‘whole-of-community’ participation and representation, in circumstances where the community may be heterogeneous or fragmented; and
negotiating the funding labyrinth of governments, and their underlying assumptions that ‘urban communities’ have ‘easier’ access to mainstream services, infrastructure, employment and economic opportunities.
This chapter looks at the establishment and operation of an urban Indigenous organisation in Newcastle—the Yarnteen Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders Corporation (YATSIC)—and how it has tackled the challenges of ‘governing for business’ within a complex community and economic setting. Yarnteen Corporation has a reputation for outstanding business and service delivery success that has been sustained over a 20 year period. Its Indigenous leaders have instigated specific strategies in respect to ‘family’ and ‘community’ when designing a governance model for the organisation. The paper proceeds by first unpacking the two social institutions of ‘family’ and ‘community’—in both their broader Indigenous and Newcastle specific contexts—and then examines the corporation’s governance solutions to these.
Importantly, Yarnteen’s leaders have consciously constructed an internal governance culture and institutional environment to support its economic functions and goals. The organisation’s economic success is directly related to these strategies. Specifically, Yarnteen has built up a foundation of institutional and governance capital that invests it with resilience, practical capacity, and business flexibility that is ‘paying a development dividend’. It appears to have done this without forsaking its cultural identity as an ‘Aboriginal organisation in the Newcastle community’. This is a considerable achievement given the difficulties highlighted by Richard Ah Mat, which seem to have contributed to the failure of so many other Indigenous community organisations and businesses.