Bauman, Toni --- "Stirrings: Business as Usual? The Fourth Annual AIC Conference: Doing Business with Aboriginal Communities" [1998] IndigLawB 40; (1998) 4(11) Indigenous Law Bulletin 18

Business as Usual?



The Fourth Annual AiC Conference: Doing Business with Aboriginal Communities

by Toni Bauman

There was a time, as some old Northern Territory government hands recently commented to me, when doing business with Aboriginal communities meant sitting around a campfire in the heat and the dirt with a carton of grog and brushing away flies. Today, however, a different kind of Aboriginal business is emerging which provides the content of corporately sponsored conferences such as the Fourth Annual AiC Conference: Doing Business with Aboriginal Communities ... New Horizons ... New Opportunities which was held at the Alice Springs Plaza Hotel 24th to 27th February 1998.

With a registration fee of $2000, such conferences are big business-accessible in the main to the representatives of large mining and petroleum corporations, legal and accountancy firms and government departments, legal and anthropological consultants for whom such conferences are tax deductions and to speakers whose expenses are covered. (The ILB had conference fees waived in exchange for mailing out fliers advertising the April AiC Conference to be held in Brisbane on Native Title); The indigenous people who are talked about and without whom there would be no 'business' are, on the whole, strangely absent. Whilst venues such as the Alice Springs Plaza Hotel offer a relative comfort zone for conference goers (though airconditioning was a problem), they seem a world away from the one in which business is often done with indigenous people. This is a world which is scarcely, in the words of our Prime Minister, 'relaxed and comfortable'.

'Big business'-large deals achieved through Native Title processes and mediated by the National Native Title Tribunal- generally dominated the proceedings. Marcus Solomon noted that indigenous people involved in such deals have as much right to legal representation as anyone else. Although it was pointed out that a set of protocols for Native Title negotiations now appears on the Native Title Tribunal web site, Julie Finlayson noted that greater emphasis is needed on the practicalities of 'how' to implement best practice. It is pleasing in this regard to see Pasminco (now Rio Tinto) implementing an indigenous people's policy, but its success can only be measured as it is revealed in Annual Reports and measured against a set of markers.

But what would such markers be? For me, this question explicitly presented itself on the final day of the conference at the two workshops I attended. In the first, 'Negotiating Native Title Agreements', convenor, Darryl Pearce, commented that 'business is business'-Aboriginal or otherwise. In the second, convened by David Trigger and Michael Williams- 'Understanding Indigenous Responses to Natural Resources Development Projects'-the differences in doing business with Aboriginal people seem to have been highlighted. (I was unable to attend the 'Human Resource Management Strategies for Employment Training and Retaining Indigenous People' workshop which was run concurrently).

The Conference itself exemplified this tension surrounding 'difference' as we continue to do 'Aboriginal business' in 'our way' at an endless round of conferences, re-inventing the wheel as new actors in the Native Title scene appear uninformed about issues which have been thoroughly discussed as an aspect of work under the Aboriginal Land Rights NT Act 1976. The disappointment which many expressed at the absence of some 'big name' indigenous speakers programmed to speak on the first day can also be seen in this light. There are few indigenous people with the prerequisite literacy and public speaking skills who can negotiate these conferences' environments. Many of those who do have these skills are endlessly overworked-particularly with the current acrimonious Wik debate.

The time has come to involve other lesser known indigenous people in such conferences - those who are running their own businesses or who have been involved in major business negotiations - both as speakers and in the setting of agendas. For this to occur, we will have to expect a different kind of expertise which will not always speak in 'our terms'. After all, these are the people with whom 'business' wishes to do 'business'. There is also a need, as Ms Liddy noted in discussing the findings of an Australian National University survey, for indigenous people to be encouraged into commerce degrees and for the way to be open for them to take their places at the top levels of industry and companies.

Notwithstanding, there were a number of excellent indigenous speakers. Evelyn Scottt, the new Chairperson of the Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation, noted that doing business should be an expression of reconciliation and that there was a need to re-establish discussions with business and industry initiated by the previous Council. This is especially important, since the basis of good business is mutual trust, and, as Darryl Pearce pointed out, some of these players have publicly supported the Prime Minister's 10 Point Plan.

Michael Coughlan of Normandy Gold's Tennant Creek Operations described the formation of the Northern Territory based Aboriginal Mining Enterprise Group of which he is the Chairperson, as constituting an indigenous voice in the industry. Tracker Tilmouth, assisted by Paul Mitchell from the Central Land Council (CLC) described some of the processes employed by CLC to assist traditional owners in controlling the management of pastoral enterprises. Kate George spoke of training and employment initiatives and Noel Bridges of effective mining agreements, noting that whilst most agreements to date have occurred in the Northern Territory, this was slowly changing as Native Title takes its course.

Joseph Ilu, the Chairperson of the recently formed Commercial Development Corporation (CDC) whose aim is to take a wholistic approach to ATSIC's funding to build a sustainable economic future, commented that the propensity for sharing in indigenous cultures worked against profit making measures and, together with welfare dependency, keeps indigenous peoples in poverty. He suggested that, to participate successfully in new initiatives, indigenous peoples need to reinstil a lost work ethic which would require that they make themselves 'greedy'.

As Michael Williams' personal case study of the Chevron Pipe Line negotiations poignantly demonstrated, business and industry must appreciate local priorities. 'Big business' often requires the incorporation of indigenous collectivities, a process which is associated with a complex and frequently fraught identity politics of authentication and representation. Big business also often requires negotiations to take place with undue haste. Unless participants are aware of the fallout that development projects can cause, they will leave behind fractured and wounded communities unable to heal themselves for generations to come.

Representative bodies also have responsibilities in this regard as Di Smith, in her controversial discussion in the panel concerning the Century Mine project noted. With no prior negotiating skills and unrealistic expectations upon them, Representative Bodies need quick access to co-ordinated funding packages. But, as Brian Stacey from ATSIC noted, there are difficulties in providing adequate funding especially when there is no guarantee that negotiations will reach fruition. Representative bodies must also be assisted in understanding their own representative responsibilities.

Papers given at the Conference varied considerably in quality. In my view, Michael Lavarch's paper, 'Compensation as a Type of Agreement' which looked behind the meaning of this catchword in examining the Native Title Act 1993, the Native Title Amendment Bill and the Senate amendments, and argued that compensation for native title based on freehold value is not sustainable against the benchmark of 'just terms', was the most thought provoking. Conference organisers might be well advised to order papers thematically and to subject papers to a review process thereby ensuring that they would be submitted well in advance. Prior consultation with indigenous associations such as the Larrakia Association in Darwin should also be aimed at establishing the kinds of issues indigenous people may wish to explore.

In summary, indigenous people are increasingly interested in the opportunities provided by business as Jon Altman pointed out in his summing up of the conference. But the benefits of 'big business' are not always clear at the local level. It may be that small business at the 'nuclear' family level-tyre changing or video rental businesses run from individual homes, for example- which are relatively devoid of such complexities and over which individuals may exert more direct control, are an equally important way to a more prosperous future. This kind of business, however, was not on the conference agenda.

Whilst there may be some spin offs for indigenous people from the networking which occurs at such conferences, the question must seriously be asked 'New opportunities, new horizons for whom?'

Toni Bauman is Co-editor of the Indigenous Law Bulletin.