iaha nation building nation building.pptx.pdf · the important role of ‘nodal leadership’ in...
TRANSCRIPT
Australian Indigenous Nation Building
Miriam Jorgensen Native Nations Institute University of Arizona Alison Vivian Jumbunna Indigenous House of Learning University of Technology, Sydney
Introduc)ons What’s your name? What’s your job?
Describe the community you work in
Two Views of Indigenous Australia
Colonial View Ø There are blacks, whites, and ul;mately you’re all supposed to be the same
Indigenous View Ø There are many different Indigenous na#ons and communi#es
Ø They have dis;nct preferences and needs Ø They seek to be Indigenously goverened Ø They will interact with each other and colonial ins;tu;ons in their own ways
Harvard Project on American Indian Economic Development &
Na;ve Na;ons Ins;tute for Leadership, Management, & Policy
Why were some Na#ve na#ons able to break away from a seemingly intractable pa:ern of poverty and what condi#ons were necessary for sustained community development?
So what are the keys to making community development happen—and making it last?
• A skilled labor force • Access to capital • Big federal grants • Good rules • Natural resources • Educa;on • Outside investors • Decisionmaking authority?
• Fair enforcement of rules
• Nearby markets • A good grant writer • Advanced technology • Physical infrastructure • Lots of entrepreneurs • Something else…?
Development Outcomes in Seven American Indian Na)ons (circa 1990-‐95)
Na)on Nat Res Educ Loc Comm
Dev
Flathead + +/-‐-‐ + Crow + + + White Mt. Apache + -‐-‐ + San Carlos Apache + -‐-‐ + Oglala Sioux (Pine Ridge) -‐-‐ + -‐-‐ Cochi? Pueblo -‐-‐ +/-‐-‐ +/-‐-‐ Mississippi Choctaw -‐-‐ -‐-‐ -‐-‐
Development Outcomes in Seven American Indian Na)ons (circa 1990-‐95)
Na)on Nat Res Educ Loc Comm
Dev
Flathead + +/-‐-‐ + + Crow + + + -‐-‐ White Mt. Apache + -‐-‐ + + San Carlos Apache + -‐-‐ + -‐-‐ Oglala Sioux (Pine Ridge) -‐-‐ + -‐-‐ -‐-‐ Cochi? Pueblo -‐-‐ +/-‐-‐ +/-‐-‐ + Mississippi Choctaw -‐-‐ -‐-‐ -‐-‐ +
Predictable factors maPer.
But something else maPers more.
It turns out that the cri;cal piece of the puzzle is…
Governance
It’s how your community/na;on organises itself, how you (as a people) make decisions,
how you resolve disputes, whether you operate under the rule of law, what message you send to both your own people and to outsiders about how the na;on works.
The essen)al elements • Genuine decision making ability /self-‐rule
• Capable/effec;ve governing ins;tu;ons • Cultural legi;macy with the community served
• Strategic thinking • Public spirited leadership, including succession planning
in other words… Indigenous Nation Building
Akwesasne Mohawk Na)on
Grand Chief Mike Mitchell
CENTRE FOR
ABORIGINAL ECONOMICPOLICY RESEARCH
Building Indigenous community governance in Australia: Preliminary research findings
J. Hunt & D.E. Smith
WORKING PAPER No. 31/2006ISSN 1442-3871 ISBN 0 7315 4930 9
ANU COLLEGE OF ARTS & SOCIAL SCIENCES
CENTRE FOR ABORIGINAL ECONOMIC POLICY RESEARCH
INDIGENOUS COMMUNITY GOVERNANCE PROJECT: YEAR TWO RESEARCH FINDINGSJ. Hunt and D.E. Smith
CAEPR WORKING PAPER No. 36/2007
Key Insights • 1
Further key insights from
the Indigenous Community
Governance Project, 2006
J. Hunt1 and D.E. Smith2
1. Fellow, Centre for Aboriginal Economic Policy Research, The Australian National University, Canberra; e-mail: [email protected]
2. Fellow, Centre for Aboriginal Economic Policy Research, The Australian National University, Canberra; e-mail: [email protected]
Cent
re f
or A
borig
inal
Eco
nom
ic P
olic
y Re
sear
ch
Colle
ge o
f Ar
ts &
Soc
ial S
cien
ces,
The
Aust
ralia
n N
atio
nal U
nive
rsity
An e
lect
roni
c pu
blic
atio
n do
wnl
oade
d fr
om <
http
://w
ww
.anu
.edu
.au/
caep
r/>.
T he Indigenous Community Governance Project (ICGP) is an Australian Research Council Linkage Project between the Centre for Aboriginal Economic Policy Research (CAEPR) at The Australian National
University, and Reconciliation Australia (RA). This short paper summarises the key issues that emerged from the comparative analysis of the ICGP’s field-based research carried out in 2006. This is the second major instalment of research findings from the project.1 Based on detailed evidence from over a dozen different ‘case studies’ of Indigenous governance in action, the ICGP’s findings are drawn from a diverse range of community, geographical, cultural and political settings across Australia.
Several major issues came to the fore in 2006:
��� the conceptual and cultural complexity of Indigenous governance systems
��� the important role of ‘nodal leadership’ in building legitimate, accountable governance
��� the prevalence and flexibility of Indigenous models of networked governance
��� the identification of shared Indigenous design principles and institutions for governance
��� the identification of key factors that sustain and undermine cultural legitimacy
��� the urgent need to invest now in governance capacity development, and
��� the ongoing role and impact of the ‘governance capacity’ of governments.
The research findings comprehensively confirm that an externally imposed ‘one size fits all’ approach to addressing Indigenous governance is unlikely to be workable or sustainable, indeed, it may be counter-productive. Organisational structures and representative arrangements will need to respond to different
Research in Australia makes similar points…
SUCCESS IN ABORIGINAL COMMUNITIES A PILOT STUDY
AUSTRALIAN COLLABORATION
AUSTRALIAN INSTITUTE OF ABORIGINAL& TORRES STRAIT ISLANDER STUDIES
!"#$%&'()*+,#-."*,&'(-/)#-($0
!"#$%&'%#()*+%,%-#%-&#!"#!%".)#/0110-2
3445674
!"#$%&'()*%$'%'+,(-'.,%#8-&019-:;2#&02%&<%-=%19/,0%1,#(2324*%#25%4#6*%32%$",%,+35,2-,
Ove
rco
min
g In
dig
en
ou
s D
isa
dv
an
tag
e
OvercomingIndigenousDisadvantageKey Indicators 2011
REPORT
Steering Committee for the Review of Government Service Provision
2011
Characteris)cs of effec)ve Australian Indigenous organisa)ons
• Sound governance with training adapted to specific circumstances
• Efficient and responsive service delivery • Strategic planning • Internal and external accountability • Engagement with the community • Clear and transparent vision and objec;ves • Flexibility and responsiveness to change • Stewardship of rela;onships and partnerships
The Australian evidence emphasises:
• Genuine Indigenous control over decision making and their governance ins;tu;ons
• Capable ins;tu;ons and organisa;ons that can get things done
• Cultural legi;macy in the eyes of the people they are designed to serve
• Overlapping networks of leadership and authority with succession planning
So that’s the evidence…
According to the norm of evidence-‐based prac;ce, what does this evidence suggest about approaches to Indigenous allied health prac;ce?
Ø What does happen?
Ø What should happen?
Prac;;oner to community:
What is it about your community and workplace that aids your work? • Can this success be understood as reflec;ve of na;on building?
• If not, does na;on-‐building thinking provide a way to leverage the success into more success?
• Do these ideas help me bring a na;on-‐building perspec;ve into my prac;ce?
Community to colonial environment:
• Na;on building is a way to change the rela;onship between an Indigenous na;on and the colonial government(s).
• Are there ways I can use na;on building principles to help empower community-‐driven change in my prac;ce environment?