their wealth and well-being . The Indigenous development problem was defined using a statistical deficits model ( i . e . life expectancy rates , education outcomes , employment status , etc .), promoting a strategy to close gaps based on a mainstreaming or ‘ normalisation ’ approach .
The Australian Government ’ s most recent policy development in this space is its National Roadmap for Indigenous Skills , Jobs and Wealth Creation , launched in December 2021 ( NIAA , 2021 ). The Roadmap aims to ‘ drive actions that enhance connection for Indigenous Australians to skills , jobs and business opportunities ’ and to ‘ facilitate partnerships with local communities and establish the conditions for investment to deliver on aspirations for jobs and economic development ’.
The recently signed National Agreement on Closing the Gap ( NIAA , 2020 ) is more about ‘ statistical sameness ’, rather than about investing in overcoming the historical legacies of colonisation , dispossession and denial of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples ’ cultural differences ( Altman , 2022 ), and there are serious doubts about whether governments will ever be able to deliver on all of the targets in the Agreement ( Dillon , 2020 ). Having failed to meet all bar one the targets in the 2008-2018 Closing the Gap Agreement , in the 2020 National Agreement governments and the Coalition of Aboriginal Peak Organisations decided to not only increase the number of targets , but also make them more about absolutes in order to shift the focus away from gaps ( Dillon , 2020 ).
To give a more recent example of policy paralysis about the genuine participation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples being able to utilise their land assets to gain a foothold in the economy , one only needs to look at the Parliamentary Joint Standing Committee on Northern Australia ’ s ( 2022 ) recently released report on ‘ The engagement of traditional owners in the economic development of northern Australia ’. The Committee ’ s remit was to examine the nature of the challenges associated with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people not being able to leverage their land and sea assets for the economic and social advantage of their communities and to consider the potential for making the best use of the opportunities provided by title to land ( Joint Standing Committee on Northern Australia , 2022:1 ).
This inquiry covered a lot of ground in difficult circumstances given the impact of Covid over two years . The Committee report follows the standard format with a series of chapters on key issues , with each chapter containing a high-level narrative supported by lots of quotations from stakeholder submissions and concluding with comments from the Committee .
As one of my colleagues at the Centre for Aboriginal Economic Policy Research ( CAEPR ) at ANU , Michael Dillon ( 2022 ) recently commented , the report tells a reasonably coherent and valuable story , but doesn ’ t break new ground . While the Committee identifies the longstanding power imbalances between traditional owners and development proponents , the Committee ’ s recommendations ‘ ignore the potential for governments to take seriously their role of representing the public and national interest ( rather than particular corporate interests ) and adopt and implement policies and legislative change that rebalances the playing field ’ ( Dillon , 2022 ).
Chapter 2 of the Committee ’ s report includes a lengthy discussion of the inalienability of land held under both statutory Aboriginal land rights grants and transfer schemes and under common law Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander tenures recognised through the native title system . The core of the problem is that there are multiple factors mitigating against the ability of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander land owners to raise capital using their land as collateral . This multifaceted problem is well recognised by the Committee , but its recommendations fall well short of recommending any solutions . As Dillon points out , the most practical way forward would be for Government to establish an institution or a mechanism to provide an underlying guarantee for loans where Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander land is utilised as collateral . This kind of solution has been explored before ( Altman and Dillon , 2004 ), but there is no political will to do so in this space . Instead , the Committee lamely tries to foist the problem back onto the financial sector , by recommending that : The financial challenges that prevent more effective leveraging of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander land assets should be seriously considered , including by financial institutions and banks . As Dillon ( 2022 ) rightly observes , the structural exclusions and systemic power imbalances remain unaddressed .
THE ‘ INTERCULTURAL CONTACT ZONE ’ AND ‘ ECONOMIC HYBRIDITY ’ We need to accept that there are distinct cultural differences between Indigenous and Western ‘ world views ’ and economies . Cultural linguist , Mary Louise Pratt ( 1991 ) describes their interactions as a ‘ contact zone ’ where ‘ cultures meet , clash , and grapple with each other , often in contexts of highly asymmetrical relations of power ’. I call this interaction between Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples and Settler society as the ‘ intercultural contact zone ’ ( Wensing , 2019 ), although , I hasten to add that the mix of norms between the two systems vary enormously .
The western economy is most challenged when there is a significant customary or non-market sector in its midst . The problem is that one system is persistently maintaining its dominance over the other , and at great cost to the other . This raises two key questions . Firstly , are there identifiable characteristics in each of the two systems and in their interactions with each other that would enable constructive alignment , commensurability and relative autonomy for respectful and just coexistence ? And secondly , what conditions or attributes are necessary for a mutually respectful and just form of coexistence , for example a ‘ hybrid ’ economy , that enables the two systems to interact productively with a degree of equilibrium / sustainability ?
The interactions between the two systems reveal areas of incommensurability and misalignment leading to conflict , dispossession and disenfranchisement . Indeed , W . E . H . Stanner ( 1958:163 ) astutely observed that the ‘ The Dreaming ’ and ‘ The Market ’ are ‘ mutually exclusive ’. Stanner also noted several other fundamental differences relating to ‘ a general design or plan of life ’ that are ‘ the opposite pole of our own ’ ( Stanner , 1958:163 ). The incommensurabilities also act as barriers to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples ’ ability to participate in the economy on their terms and at their choosing . It is the failure to accept that there are two distinctly different world-views that is impeding a recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples ’ rights to forms of development and participation in the economy on their terms and at their choosing . A greater focus is required on teasing out the incommensurabilities and supplanting the prevailing orthodoxies with a coherent policy framework of coexistence
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT JOURNAL VOL 15 NO 1 2022 19