9. Indigenous leaders and leadership: agents of networked governance

In 2007, the Prime Minister of Australia, The Hon. John Howard,^[1] introduced a policy of unilateral intervention into Indigenous communities in the Northern Territory (NT), purportedly to address the overwhelming incidence of child abuse. In doing so, he argued that ‘The basic elements of a civilised society don’t exist’.^[2] His main Ministerial proponent of the intervention, The Hon. Mal Brough, the Minister for Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs, justified the nature of the initiative by characterising Indigenous people in the NT as having a dysfunctional society where ‘strong men prevail’ (Howard and Brough 2007). In addition, the Federal Health Minister, Mr Tony Abbott, referred to ‘big men’ who are ‘terrorising’ other Aboriginal people (ABC 2007).

These views are reminiscent of those of commentators such as Helen Hughes (2005: 16), who recently argued that ‘Small elites of “big men” monopolise the layers of separate governance created for Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders’. According to Hughes (ibid.), ‘Sorcery and payback thrive. The ultimate results are murders and suicides’.

In a similar vein, another commentator (Hirst 2007) wrote in one national newspaper that ‘in many Aboriginal communities … [t]he people have shown they are incapable of governing themselves. There is no point in consulting them about the creation of authority; authority has to be created for them’.

When issues arise about the functionality of Indigenous communities, politicians and public commentators regularly question whether there is, in fact, any extant Indigenous governance and leadership. Some argue that if it once existed, it has since become valueless or has disintegrated altogether. Many regard Indigenous leadership as being so politically under-developed and socially ephemeral that it is ineffective in mobilising law and order.

It is perhaps not surprising then, that when The Hon. John Howard’s VIP aircraft landed at Wadeye (Port Keats) in the NT in early April 2005, Australia’s national leader, accompanied by senior bureaucrats, appeared keen to make his visit as brief as possible. Receiving a salute from an Aboriginal soldier in army uniform, he shook hands with a local Aboriginal landowner and council representative and then hurriedly moved on. Under a nearby tree, unnoticed by the official party, were several bemused elderly Aboriginal gentlemen, one in a wheel chair, patiently watching the events unfold, and waiting to welcome their official guest. These men were in fact senior leaders^[3] of the Port Keats region, experts in group survival, directors of ceremony, and adept at negotiated decision-making and consensus building.^[4] Most had spent time ‘droving bullocky’ as expert stockmen, working for the cattle barons of the NT, and more recently had been engaged in establishing representative organisations within the community. Later, they were briefly acknowledged by the Prime Minister as his party swept on through the community. Meanwhile, Aboriginal community residents, well aware of the importance of these old men, respectfully gave them their due deference and attention.^[5]

In the wider historical context of Indigenous affairs and the NT intervention, this scene raises important questions. Why is it that in Australia, Indigenous leaders are often disregarded or at best grudgingly recognised by non-Indigenous people and their leaders? Why is Indigenous leadership seemingly invisible to non-Indigenous eyes? Is Indigenous leadership so politically under-developed that it is ineffective in today’s post-colonial Australian society? Are the leaders themselves content to sit in the background and let the intercultural vortex marginalise them?

This chapter draws on field research conducted at Port Keats to examine the conditions for the reproduction and enactment of Indigenous leadership with the aim of bringing both the concept and practical workings of leadership into sharper relief in the contemporary Australian intercultural setting. A model of networked Indigenous leadership is proposed that enables us to better understand how Indigenous leaders are produced and developed, and how local Indigenous societies, at least to this point, have been able to promote cultural resilience and collective survival. To do so, the chapter looks back at the leadership history of the community and the personal life histories of people who are regarded by their peers and kin as ‘leaders’. It also positions Indigenous leadership and governance within the wider environment of mainstream Australian governance and explores possible options for creative engagement between the two domains, and for the sustainability of Indigenous forms of leadership.