COMMENT by DON FULLER
Dr Fuller provided this text in part to expand on the comments by editor ERWIN CHLANDA in the New Year’s Day edition.
Increasingly, NT citizens are questioning the moral conduct and integrity of government, viewing it as not fit for purpose, and often corrupt. They see politicians as focused mainly on their personal careers, fighting their way to the top through patronage and factional infighting and then leaving to use information acquired in government, to work for their own benefit, on very large salaries in business organisations.
These problems have been magnified by a lack of concern in the NT for the main principles of a Westminster style democratic government and have involved governments dismantling some of the key requirements.
These include ignoring Ministerial Codes of Conduct for post-employment and politicizing senior levels of the NT Public Service and the NT Police Force.
The foundations of a merit based Public Service with security of tenure have been demolished. Inequitable, unfair and unjust treatment, favouring senior levels of the Public Service and NT Police, have become the norm.
Accountability, openness and transparency in government essential underpinnings of a democratic government have virtually disappeared into a Mafia-like den of secrecy!
There have been major failures in governance in the Territory, particularly since Self-Government in 1978. Successive NT governments have been unable to bridge the differences in cultures in the main demographic groups in the Territory.
This is surprising since many of the early proponents of Self-Government of the Territory such as Ron Withnall, Bernie Kilgariff, Goff Letts, Dick Ward and Harry Chan for example, were individuals who respected racial differences and diversity and differences of intellectual tradition and thought.
However, the NT seems to be a clear example of the difference that occurs between visions and achievements due to serious problems of implementation occurring following Self-Government. It brought to the fore a completely different set of priorities that often seemed to prioritize individual political wealth seeking over concerns for the wider Territory population.
In addition, the them vs us adversarial position adopted between the main racial groups in the Territory sowed the seeds for what the Territory now reaps.
What is particularly noteworthy is that such a difference in approach was unnecessary in those early days as racial harmony was one of the defining successes of the Territory.
It appears that as the actual implementation of Self-Government proceeded in the Territory this them vs us morphed further into the presence of a troubling group of business oligarchs with close and apparently secretive relationships with some senior politicians.
A culture developed of what goes on in the Territory, stays and is OK in the Territory. Beside the many other problems associated with this approach was the fact that most people, especially Aboriginal people, were completely excluded from such governance and wealth seeking arrangements.
This cultural shift in governance responsibilities had major implications for the proper functioning of democratic government in the form of government for the people.
From this grew an acceptance of a lack of accountability and openness and transparency in government which seriously impedes government in the Territory today. It is, as if a governance structure has now grown in the Territory that would only be acceptable in some developing African states.
What can be expected following this serious slide in the ethics and principles of good governance in the Northern Territory?
As I have pointed out previously, the evidence is clear that there is likely to be higher levels of corruption and mismanagement, limited economic development, retarded growth and employment and a higher level of social conflict in the Northern Territory.
A number would argue that such indicators are already obvious.
Fewer and fewer companies and organisations will be prepared to risk an environment so badly governed and uncertain, with the accompanying unacceptably high levels of risk.
This can be expected to undermine government revenues further and in turn limit the capacity of the Territory government to protect and develop their residents through the further hollowing out of education, health and police and justice systems, for example.
Basic infrastructure such as power, roads and communication systems are also likely to be affected.
Very importantly, the risks are likely to be even more troubling for the Territory.
The particular demographic structure of the Territory means that rapidly increasing social problems – associated with marginalised Aboriginal societies who are untrusting of government. They are also dealing with collapsing Aboriginal law, culture and social structures which are likely to increase further, with very serious implications for residents of the Territory.
Such increased social dislocation, with the associated problems of disharmony and violence, are likely to gather pace with an important section of the NT community unable to develop strong, ethical and reliable linkages with leadership in government.
Ethical and responsible leadership is vital at the senior levels of pParliamentary democracy and government to set the necessary standards and examples to individuals, institutions and organisations in society.
Successful democratic governments also require and encourage a high level of community participation rather than operating as a closed, self-interested, separate, them vs us club.
There is likely to be nowhere more important in Australia that this occurs rapidly than in the Northern Territory.
Without such leadership, the NT is bound to fail and the compounding negative consequences are likely to be increasingly severe for Territory residents.
This will continue and escalate until Northern Territory political leaders appreciate they are elected to serve all members of the public in an ethical and responsible manner, rather than their own private interests.
The current Chief Minister seems beset by the unfortunate tragedy of modern democratic politics involving the pursuit of office without a guiding vision or understanding of the foundations of good governance.
This inevitably results in a failure of leadership.
However, alongside such serious governance failures has been a failure of governance in key Indigenous organizations such as land councils. These organizations are in serious need of review and reform.
Failures in these important Aboriginal organisations often affect marginalized and poor Aboriginal people to a greater extent than the obvious failures occurring in Non-Aboriginal governance in the Territory. This is because Non-Aboriginal people with higher levels of education and skills for a mainstream economy, find it far easier to adapt and overcome barriers.
As pointed out by Warren Mundine recently, despite the vast land resources owned by Aboriginal groups in the Territory, the fundamental building blocks of a successful market based economy in Australia are absent due to land rights legislation, and the suffocating presence of the Land Councils with their large, unwieldy, expensive bureaucracies.
This inability to build economic activity on Aboriginal land sets up a self-reinforcing cycle of very weak business activity, low school attendance, low educational outcomes, social dysfunction and crime.
However, while Aboriginal people suffer the most as owners of these assets, their non-productive use also affects the economic and social situation of Australians as a whole, in a substantial way.
This is occurring as royalties meant for desperate Aboriginal people are being funnelled by bodies associated with Land Councils, into long term asset accumulation for purposes unknown.
Governments at both the NT and Federal levels have shown a disturbing inability to confront such major maladministration and wastage of resources.
There is little doubt for example, even amongst many Aboriginal people that land councils are acting as a serious barrier to the economic and human development of Aboriginal people and preventing the economic use of huge assets of Aboriginal land for doubtful purposes such as long-term wealth building investments.
PHOTO (supplied): Central Land Council delegate group meeting in April 2023 supporting a Yes vote in the Voice referendum which was not successful. Dr Fuller describes land councils as a serious barrier to the economic and human development of Aboriginal people and comments on the use of “huge assets of Aboriginal land” for doubtful purposes such as long-term wealth building investments.
Well said Don. History of ATSIC leadership in which a couple of previous “leaders” are now subject to legal proceedings for obvious misuse of moneys within their organizations tells the story.
While non Indigenous super funds are awash with investment funds supposedly destined for the benefits of their members, land councils and other Indigenous bodies take for granted the continuous flow of money from governments and royalties into their coffers.
Recent developments in WA attempting to increase royalty payments from mining companies will be counterproductive to both the mining industry there and the long term interests of the Indigenous population by reducing confidence and investment making local Indigenous people increasingly reliant on governments and other bodies efforts to sustain themselves.
It would be to everyone’s benefit for money slushing around in so called benevolent funds to be made available to aspiring Indigenous people on commercial terma in keeping with what the rest of us have to go through to get ahead.
That would require a lot of training and encouragement but the seeds are there. Some long term residents might remember efforts years ago to get public exposure of the way these bodies work and how that was blocked by a barrage of lawyers.
An Indigenous development bank to enable aspiring Indigenous people to get ahead of the welfare mentality would benefit everyone.
I know of several aspiring Indigenous entrepreneurs with great possibilities to develop self sustaining enterprises which conventional lending sources would not look at, but which are not only in the Indigenous people’s interests but the national interest as well. But bodies like the Land councils continue to buy more vehicles etc. to promote image. How many vehicles does the CLC run? I saw a recent numberplate over 100, and how many of them are used as taxis?
You only have to spend time at the pick up area at the hospital to see the scope of that problem.
In the meantime one of the TOs just west of the border, noting the number of travellers on the road to Newman, wanted to put in a service station to cater for them. He is still waiting, I assume 10 years or more. Another further north near Mullan wanted to put a camping facility on Lake Gregory. I assume he too is still waiting for financial help and guidance, but the fleet of land council vehicles seems to multiplying.
One aspiring young man from a community to the west of here wanted to commercially plant native tucker but got no encouragement, let alone finance.
These attitudes go back to Federal levels as well where philosophy overrides practicality. Years ago there was a movement to eliminate feral camels from Docker River because of the damage they were doing to infrastructure.
Two non-Indigenous people were prepared and very keen to remove the camels commercially, but were stopped by the singing minister for the environment at the time on the grounds that Indigenous people might be exploited. I still have his letter somewhere.
The movement of people of influence who suddenly find that there are more lucrative opportunities outside of politics, yet subscribe on the surface to other points of view is unfortunately true on both sides of politics.
The NT is just the tip of the problem.
Dr Don, this is considered, confronting and accurate.
Erwin set the discussion. It would be good to have a piece from people from all parts of the community – to make government take notice.
I would like to hear from other community leaders. Business owners, academics, church leaders, Indigenous elders …
The concept of government has morphed from protector of the flock (shepherd) and democracy to (wolf) protector of itself – autocracy or totalitarianism in effect, by not involving the members of the public in the decision making process
The majority of the public are going to be adversely affected (instead of just the offenders) by any laws so enacted by it (the government).
Instances of this are too numerous to mention throughout history, including Australian history and in this particular case, Northern Territory history. Conclusion reached by me in my 27 years residence in NSW, 26 in the NT and lately 30 yrs in QLD.
To understand the root of the problems, maybe we should ask ourselves: Are the majority of Australians adults prepared to argue with authorities, participate in decisions making?
In order to be ready for this, we have to start at home and it is the job and duty of the parents to ensure that children can develop self-esteem, problem-solving skills, and a sense of self-advocacy.
They can also become more aware of their rights and positive life options.
Here are some ways to encourage children’s participation in decision-making:
• Listen and take them seriously: Children’s ideas and suggestions should be valued and turned into reality.
• Talk respectfully: Have conversations where children’s thoughts are genuinely sought.
• Give them opportunities to practice: Provide children with chances to make choices and practice decision-making steps.
• Ask questions: Ask questions that encourage children to make thoughtful decisions.
• Praise them: When children make decisions, praise them, especially if they do so quickly.
• Give them options: Provide children with two options and be patient so they have time to decide.
As children develop, they will be able to participate in more complex decision-making.
This step must be followed at school and all educational institutions.
Involving children in decision-making at school can help them develop skills, feel more responsible, and be more motivated. It can also help them learn that their ideas and perspectives are valued, and that they can influence the things that affect them.
Here are some ways to involve children in decision-making at school:
• Let them make choices: Provide opportunities for children to choose how and what they do, such as how they research information or what they cook.
• Ivolve them in setting rules: Even young students can help decide on classroom and school rules.
• Listen to them: Take children’s ideas seriously and turn them into reality.
• Explain your decisions: Explain to children why you made certain decisions.
Students’ participation in decision-making can have many benefits, including:
• Improved self-esteem: Children can develop enhanced self-esteem and problem-solving skills.
• Better decision-making: Organisations can make more effective decisions.
• Improved quality of service: Practitioners can provide better quality service.
• Greater community cohesion: The wider community can benefit from greater cohesion.
• Better targeted policies: Policymakers can design policies that better meet the needs of children.
Then comes the work place: Participation in decision-making is a process where employees and managers work together on planning and problem-solving. It can help improve organisational goals by promoting shared responsibility, equity, and joint governance.
Any one growing in those three steps is not a sheep any longer following blindly the shepherds, he/she is a goat ready to fight for the good of the herd.
(Goats are independent animals, happy to go their own way as well as with other goats.They don’t follow for the sake of following. Sheep are very much herd animals, conforming with the flock and obedient to the shepherd).
Yes, Evelyne. I agree. Such an education is fundamental to a well functioning community and society. This has been lacking sadly in the Territory for some time.
As someone who was educated as a young person in the Territory, when under the control of South Australia, it has been sad and disturbing to witness such an inexorable decline in teaching and education standards in the Territory since Self-Government.
Such remiss by successive Territory governments has badly affected young people from all backgrounds – but undoubtably those from Aboriginal backgrounds in a far more serious manner.
Often NT politicians have lacked a clear understanding of education themselves and have been suspicious of those who are concerned about education.This of course, has been a major contributor to the lack of strategic and policy skills exhibited by many NT politicians.
John Pilger died one year ago. It was written this week that: “Pilger was simply doing his job as a reporter. What made him stand out exceptionally were herds of journalists not doing theirs.
“And what was their job? To reveal the depravations of the powerful that result in the deprivations of the weak.”
While Pilger produced some nonsense about the Northern Territory, the vast body of his work “revealed the depravations of the powerful”.
Thankfully here we have a voice in the wilderness in Erwin Chlanda. We also thank him for providing a platform to publish the work of big thinkers like Dr Don Fuller who can see right through the spin in government media releases. Thank you, Don.
What a pity it is that our major political parties lose their way in one or two Parliamentary terms. Even when one of them tabled a discussion paper Restoring Integrity to Government.
Unfortunately, this problem also extends to the Australian Government. Journalism fails there as well.
It is left to the Australian National Audit Office to reveal industrial scale rorting of public money in report after report tabled in the Parliament. Like Sports Grants, Park and Ride Grants. The journalists scarcely mention those reports (are they afraid of losing privileges like Ministerial aircraft trips?), and the Opposition looks the other way (glass house syndrome?). The reports just gather dust.
Some economists spill the beans too. The previous Government manipulated the methodology that shares the Goods and Services Tax between the States to massively benefit Western Australia for crude political reasons. We expected the current Government to return to the previous arrangement that had served Australia so well, but it has EXTENDED the arrangements. It has been described by a prominent economist as: “The worst public policy decision of the 21st Century.”
About $53 billion has been taken from General Purpose Revenue over the last eleven years to compensate the States for the money taken from them to give to Western Australia (the no State worse off guarantee).
That money could have addressed the infrastructure deficit that the Northern Territory was handed at the time of Self-Government – roads, bridges, airstrips, wharves, schools, pre-schools, health clinics.
Most journalists think keeping up with politics means sitting in Canberra.
There is a lot more of Australia outside Metropolitan cities.
Our national electorates’ problems are that far too many elected politicians ignore their electorates, following what-ever their top dog tells them.