Judith Lovell Anzsee conference, Armidale, 19-23 October 2015

1. 1.
Hello My name is Judy Lovell and I’d like to acknowledge the traditional owners and
elders past, present and future, and thank them for their custody of this land. I also like
to acknowledge the work of my co‐authors related to this presentation ‐ Don Zoellner
and John Guenther.
I work for the Northern Institute at Charles Darwin University on research synthesis for
the Cooperative Research Centre for Remote Economic Participation. In discussing the
ways which human populations can strike a dynamic balance between economic
development and the ecological constraints, it is clear that the issue of local enterprise
and aspiration is vital to sustainable development. It is also evident we need a far better
understanding about the goals of local remote residents as these are essential to
sustainable enterprise. The degree to which these ‘must be integrated into
environmental and economic policy at the local, regional, and international levels’ is
something which we discuss in this paper.
1

2. 2.
There are barriers aplenty presented in response to remote economic participation, and
sustainable remote enterprise barely rates as conversations focus on ‘deficit and
disadvantage’. We don’t suggest ignoring issues of marginalisation, but agree that
looking to understand the ways that enterprise and entrepreneurialism contribute
valuable social and economic benefits.
As we live in such a connected world, our research can increasingly be put into contexts
or comparisons with that of other developed nations, other industry workforce and
labour force initiatives, Aboriginal and Torres Strait islander perspectives and studies of
remote Aboriginal enterprise. The ways that various cultural cohorts around the world
approach ecological sustainability includes considering future generations, and this is of
central importance from many perspectives.
2

3. 4.
We are going to look at some data from census, with industry information and some
models of enterprise.
We know that local people are essential to the economic, social, environmental and
cultural sustainability of remote settlements.
We know that local and regional perspectives and capacities are different things. Urban
planning applies to almost 98 per cent of Australian residents, whereas remote and very
remote area planning applies to a little over 2 per cent.
There is a lot of evidence that policy with a non‐remote planning vision incurs
unintended consequences in remote areas, and there are many well researched ideas
and a lot of ‘static’ for what to do about it.
It is our contention that there is a need for better settlement level input to describe the
capacity, aspiration and the advantages which are in the admixture of mixed‐markets,
and which depend upon Aboriginal ‘soft infrastructures’ and Aboriginal sovereignty. We
would add to that long sentence ‐ if there is to be an ‘integration of environmental and
economic policy at the local, regional, and international level’.
3

4. 5.
Enterprise has been seen as the panacea for remote Australia and mainly through
extraction industries but workforce labour‐market returns to remote settlements from
those extractive industries has been inefficient. That inefficiency influenced the actual
flow‐on versus the planned and assumed flow‐on through socio‐economic benefit
returning to residents. Staying with the Northern Territory example, mining for example
is said to have achieved 20 per cent Gross State Product but only 6 per cent of
employment (Ensign and Borch, 2016, forthcoming).
In this study we present data for 15 settlements, some Arandic and some Ngarrkic
speakers, in central Australia to explore three enterprise‐types, that we call ‘mixed‐
market’ enterprise. These are Aboriginal Art centres, Indigenous Ranger programs and
Aboriginal community researchers. In other remote places that list would grow and
might include bush food, tourism, knowledge centres or cross‐cultural awareness
programs, but as far as we can establish within data constraints, these were not active in
the 15 settlements selected, in 2011 or 2006 – the census collection years.
The 15 settlements are clustered according to whether, in 2011, they had all three
activities occurring locally, or one or two, or none at all. The data is grouped by these
clusters, and each has five settlements in it.
4

5. 6.
In this research we model economic participation using three types – they are market
(private); non‐market (public); and the admixture of these that we call the ‘mixed‐
market’ to try and create some better understanding about the industries which provide
important opportunities for remote entrepreneurs, and the models and structures in
place.
Where they are available locally, some contribution can be seen in census occupational
data. However, industry information suggests the census data greatly under‐represents
enterprise and especially mixed‐market activity in this research.
In terms of the census, ‘labour force’ includes the employed, who are working at least
one hour or more per week, and those actively seeking work. Even considering under‐
reporting through primary occupation, the impact when activities are based locally can
be said to matter, because the actions of individual are amplified in sparser populations.
The averages of indigenous labour force to population across the clusters in 2011 is
about 1 person in the labour force in every 4 Indigenous residents. In contrast, the
whole of the rest of Australia in 2011 those figures are 1 in every 2 residents.
Closing the Gap on Indigenous Disadvantage reports ‘there was a decline in employment
outcomes since the baseline in 2008’ and the target to ‘halve the gap in employment
outcomes between Indigenous and non‐Indigenous Australians’ by 2018 is ‘not on
track’(Australian Government, 2015a, p.5). In fact, the employment gap has increased
between 2008 and 2013 by 6.9 percentage points (p. 18). Our data suggests that the
5

6. income gap has also increased, at least in some regions.
5

7. 7.
In Cluster One, the labour force declined a little, but employment declined significantly
more, and unemployment increased by 2/3rds of the amount of decline in employment.
Natural and Cultural resource management related activity increased by 38 people, and
arts related activity decreased. This echoes the increase in funding for ranger programs
between census points and the change in relationship of Community Development
Employment Programme to arts related occupations.
In Cluster Two the labour force is close to static, but employment increased by almost
100, and this may account for the fall in unemployed. Both arts and ncrm virtually
trebled in cluster two, with the addition of art 2 centres and ranger programs.
In Cluster Three the labour force increased slightly and employment increased slightly, as
did the number of people seeking work. While 5 people give an arts related occupation
in 2011, there is a larger increase in cnrm from 4 to 34 people and this likely reflects
station work at Napperby.
6

8. 8.
These next slides consider the census data for employees in the categories of ‘market’
(private), non‐market (public) and mixed‐market – as described above. We need to
consider this data knowing that a person who perhaps works in an art centre, and is on
the board, or is a traditional owner, has not classified themself as an ‘owner/manager of
an incorporated business’. It appears that CLC rangers wouldn’t consider themselves
employees of the federal government, despite CLC status as a statutory authority of the
Australian government. These are clear examples of why we need much more to inform
remote economic participation policy than census data.
Cluster One shows a decline Indigenous participation in market and non‐market of
around 50 per cent. The NI/NS category more than doubled in both.
In Cluster Two shows Indigenous participation in market and non‐market declines and
there is a fourfold increase in NI/NS non‐market and a three‐fold increase in NI/NS
market activity.
Cluster Three shows Indigenous participation reduced by a 1/3 in non‐market and about
2/3rds in market activity. The NI/NS non‐market category increases four‐fold, but the
market activity halves.
Thinking through this suggests change impacts from CDEP and the Shire amalgamation
appear to have had detrimental employment consequences across these settlements.
7

9. 9.
Employees within the three tiers of government by cluster. In 2006, Local government
employment was highest for local Aboriginal residents. In 2011 the number has
decreased by about 5/6ths in Cluster One and 4/5ths in Clusters Two and Three.
The NI/NS Local government employment increased three‐fold in Cluster One, ten‐ fold
in Cluster Two, and nine‐fold in Cluster Three.
Some increases in remote Aboriginal employment with the Territory Government
occurred, and there were losses and gain in Australian Government tier. Remote NI/NS
employment increased in all clusters across all tiers of government.
Again, this data when studied with income data indicates where the trend towards
higher paid and increased numbers of NI/NS staff has occurred and seems to signify the
loss of employment in this sector contributed to overall reduction in the level of income
per person for Aboriginal residents, across the clusters between the Census points.
8

10. 10.
Census income data suggests an increase in income and in the number of NI/NS
employed in the settlement in the study who reported this as their place of usual
residence at the census. Many are not long‐term locals, and it can be assumed that most
of these incomes were spent outside the community and the region.
It is alarming that there is an overall decrease in reported income of local Aboriginal
people between census points.
9

11. 11.
Back to the topic of this presentation: a need for better settlement level input to
describe the capacity, aspiration and the advantages which are in the admixture of
mixed‐markets, and which depend upon Aboriginal ‘soft infrastructures’ and Aboriginal
sovereignty.
This is the last data slide and in it we look at status across the clusters, at the two
censuses in the classifications of business owners or business employees.
There is very little in the category of Indigenous ‘owner/manager of unincorporated
enterprises’ and there is zero record of ‘owner manager incorporated enterprise’. Yet
those categories should include board members of incorporations, traditional owners
and custodians.
The table confirms that there is almost no business ownership or
employment described through census in this region of central Australia,
at either collection point
10

12. 12.
The mixed‐market concept is useful in opening this space between what is occurring,
and how public and private interests interact with that in remote Australia. We know
national census data is not designed for use with small numbers of residents, such as
those in remote settlements and so the information from collection points that we
present here must be understood as snapshots in time and place – not as predictive or
indicative trends.
We know remote mobility, social, cultural and kinship activity and seasonal events effect
Census as much as language use, interpretation of surveys and self‐assessment does.
We know that there are variables that impact on labour force, employment and
unemployment which are external to remote contexts. These include cosmopolitan and
national markets, and changes in programme and service delivery as a result of non‐
market policy and politics.
11

13. 13.
As earlier stated, we have looked at sources beyond census and industry information, to
see how the mixed‐market type admix is represented in another developed country with
Aboriginal residents in remote and sparsely populated northern regions.
These diagrams represent two models of Aboriginal social enterprise in Canada. They
are developing a framework to describe social enterprises. But for today it is the two
models relating to Indigenous social enterprise are most relevant to our topic.
The top model describes Indigenous enterprises with a quadruple bottom line – that is
those that return integrated social, cultural, environmental and financial benefit. The
purpose of ‘Indigenous social enterprise’ from this perspective is to realise sustainable
integrated goals and operate in line with dominant Canadian markets through the
national regulatory system.
The second model has been described as Indigenous capitalism. It makes use of the
structure of cooperatives, but sees further premise of ‘social enterprise’ as a barrier to
free choice. This model practices philanthropy through bestowing financial support to
projects of social and economic benefit to Aboriginal people. It operates through
mainstream supply and demand markets in return for profit‐taking. Products and
services may include those without any social, cultural or environmental benefit – such
as casino, tobacco and alcohol ‐ which are individual pleasures/rather than social‐benefit
returns. These cooperatives also operate within the national regulatory system.
12

14. 14.
These next models are more locally informed – in a Northern Territory perspective ‐ but
to the north of our study region, in Arnhem Land. Women’s entrepreneurial activity and
aspiration was studied over a six year period. The activities included local art production,
tourism ventures, night patrol services and nursery production for conservation. The
women aspired to a new model of Yolngu business that meshes with the national
regulatory system, but is not inextricably linked to Australian consumer markets. Yolngu
customs and values influence the entrepreneurs in all aspects of their work and the
business aspirations discussed combined economic and social dimensions Governance
was felt to be an integrator between the Yolngu businesses and the dominant Australian
consumer markets.
The study also found stronger cultural drivers for establishing small business than
financial ones. In common with research undertaken with Arrernte women, the
entrepreneurs did not identify themselves as marginalised or impoverished and their
motivations for business were not driven by goals of reducing poverty or earning
investment capital.
13

15. 15.
This brings us to the research discussed earlier. As previously mentioned we have called
this a mixed‐market model because each of the enterprises and industries we found
active rely on non‐market resources to enable market transactions; and markets value
products of the ‘soft‐infrastructure’ of local Aboriginal residents. Each enterprise‐type
adapts their business model, and each of these ones works within different regulatory
framework, has varied membership and employment structures, and varied access to
governance structures. Because they combine public funding with market generated
income we call them ‘mixed‐market’ activities. More about that model later.
• Art Centres – local governance through the Corporations (Aboriginal and Torres
Strait Islander) Act (2006)
• Ranger Programs (Southern Region NT) – regional management by the Central
Land Council, a not‐for‐profit statutory authority of the Australian Government
• Aboriginal Community Researchers – individual fee for service or wage labour
contracts to NFPs, CATSI orgs, and private companies.
The mixed‐market structure provides access to remote services or products through
regulatory and governance frameworks of the dominant Australian market. The supplier
requires public funding for some level of resource and/or infrastructure – which is not
unique; in fact all remote businesses rely on public expenditure for infrastructure,
resources, or services.
Each of these mixed‐market enterprises returns some or all of social, cultural,
14

16. environmental benefits; and always a financial benefit to the resident/supplier/producer.
However, understanding the impact of mixed‐market activity for remote workforces,
labour markets and in terms of social and economic benefit is far from easy, as we have
seen.
Aside from the census data, we used industry information for the three activities we think
most likely in 15 communities in central Australia, and we clustered those communities in
regard to the presence or absence of all, some or none of these. The analysis of what we
found is very constrained by the data, but it was the best available. Even with those
constraints, further attention to mixed‐markets and the structures they require to
perform as local enterprises is warranted.
14

17. 14.
Conceptualization of remote entrepreneurs and enterprises seems to be absent in
industry and census data.
Census data has not reflected occupational activity accurately through primary
occupation, and in places the labour force is exceeded by an understated record of arts
entrepreneurs.
Policy changes as evident in census data seems to have contributed to less equity
between long term local residents and migratory workers, and census reports give the
impression of a very dominant non‐market in remote settlements.
Aboriginal residents who are entrepreneurs, traditional owners and on boards of
governance do not self‐select as business owners/managers/employees/ of local
businesses
We need to rethink the ways that local enterprise is supported, fostered, discussed and
understood and to enable the non‐market structures people need to use for sustainable
entrepreneurial activity
the concept of a mixed‐market acknowledges a present need for public expenditure that
will contribute to vital and sustainable enterprise activity through placing Aboriginal
soft‐infrastructure and capacity central, as those are things which through local
enterprise can derive service or product with a market value
More work is underway around the attraction and retention of local remote staff, and
through that we hope to expand the view of mixed‐markets, local aspirations and
15

18. remote capacity.
15

19. 15.
Thank you for listening, please contact us if you have a further interest in this work, or
talk to Ruth in the session.
16

20. 17